In this edition of the Legal Malpractice Update:
- Supreme Court of Tennessee
Statute of Limitations: Dismissal of legal malpractice action of former clients as time-barred, affirmed by appellate court, reversed and remanded by Tennessee Supreme Court because clients had not yet suffered actual or legally cognizable injury in underlying case until final judgment entered against them notwithstanding earlier adverse summary judgment order.
- Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Breach of Duty of Care a Disputed Question of Fact: Summary judgment decision in favor of defendant attorney reversed where the breach of the duty of care by the defendant in the Suit Within the Suit constituted a disputed question of fact rendering summary judgment inappropriate.
- Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Absolute-Litigation Privilege Inapplicable to Statutory Claim for Improper Disclosure of Personal Health Information: Absolute-litigation privilege barred a tort action but did not bar an action for improper disclosure of personal health information under Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act.
- Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh District
Proximate Cause: Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant attorney and law firm who withdrew from representation prior to plaintiff client's voluntary settlement of underlying case where the client could not show how the law firm's withdrawal caused client to receive a diminished settlement, and where client did not present adequate evidence on the case within a case.
- Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Attorney Work Product Privilege and Expert Work Product Privilege: An attorney may assert the work product privilege over documents the attorney prepared and sent to a testifying expert but the work product privilege is waived to the extent the attorney provided facts to the testifying expert to serve as the basis for the expert’s opinions, and the testifying expert’s draft opinions are protected under the testifying expert work product privilege and are not discoverable.
- Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District
Attorney-Client Privilege: The malpractice exception to the attorney-client privilege, which allows a lawyer to disclose otherwise privileged communications in order to defend against a claim of malpractice, only applies to communications between the client and the lawyer being sued for malpractice and does not extend to communications between the client or his insurer and successor counsel.