Ethics Cases
CASE BRIEFS:
LEGAL ETHICS
INTRODUCTION TO COMMON LAW CASE AUTHORITY
5th Semester
1. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (1980) Facts: Mr. Togstad was paralyzed by negligent doctors. Mrs. Togstad approached Miller seeking legal advice on her malpractice case. After a standard interview, Miller stated that he didn’t think that she had a case. However, Miller never ordered medical records, nor did he advise her of the two-year statute of limitations. Mrs. Togstad relied on Miller’s advice, and did not approach another attorney until the statute of limitations had run. Procedural Posture: The lower court found that Miller was liable for malpractice, and he appeals. Issue: Whether Miller is liable for malpractice for his failure to advise Mrs. Togstad properly. Holding: Yes. Reasoning: In a legal malpractice action, four elements must be shown: 1) that an attorney-client relationship existed, 2) that the defendant acted negligently or in breach of contract, 3) but for causation, and 4) damages. It is settled that where a person seeks the legal advice of an attorney, and the attorney renders a professional opinion, an attorney client relationship is established. Based on expert testimony, Miller failed to perform the minimal medical records research that would be required to render advice of this sort. Miller was also negligent in failing to advise Mrs. Togstad of the 2-year medical malpractice statute of limitations because a prudent lawyer would have done so. There is further sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Togstad would have been successful had the case gone to trial. Thus, Miller is liable for malpractice.
2. Mirabito v. Liccardo, (1992) Facts: Liccardo is a lawyer who is a relative of Mirabito. Liccardo advised Mirabito to enter into investment transactions in which Liccardo had an interest, without disclosing this interest to Mirabito, in violation of a rule of professional conduct. The investments lost money.
LEGAL ETHICS
INTRODUCTION TO COMMON LAW CASE AUTHORITY
5th Semester
1. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, (1980) Facts: Mr. Togstad was paralyzed by negligent doctors. Mrs. Togstad approached Miller seeking legal advice on her malpractice case. After a standard interview, Miller stated that he didn’t think that she had a case. However, Miller never ordered medical records, nor did he advise her of the two-year statute of limitations. Mrs. Togstad relied on Miller’s advice, and did not approach another attorney until the statute of limitations had run. Procedural Posture: The lower court found that Miller was liable for malpractice, and he appeals. Issue: Whether Miller is liable for malpractice for his failure to advise Mrs. Togstad properly. Holding: Yes. Reasoning: In a legal malpractice action, four elements must be shown: 1) that an attorney-client relationship existed, 2) that the defendant acted negligently or in breach of contract, 3) but for causation, and 4) damages. It is settled that where a person seeks the legal advice of an attorney, and the attorney renders a professional opinion, an attorney client relationship is established. Based on expert testimony, Miller failed to perform the minimal medical records research that would be required to render advice of this sort. Miller was also negligent in failing to advise Mrs. Togstad of the 2-year medical malpractice statute of limitations because a prudent lawyer would have done so. There is further sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Togstad would have been successful had the case gone to trial. Thus, Miller is liable for malpractice.
2. Mirabito v. Liccardo, (1992) Facts: Liccardo is a lawyer who is a relative of Mirabito. Liccardo advised Mirabito to enter into investment transactions in which Liccardo had an interest, without disclosing this interest to Mirabito, in violation of a rule of professional conduct. The investments lost money.