Choosing the Right Legal Malpractice Lawyer in San Francisco

What is Considered Legal Malpractice

Legal malpractice, also known as attorney malpractice, occurs when an attorney fails to perform competently during the course of his or her representation of a client, and as a result, the client suffers harm. A client can show harm in two ways: they are awarded less money as a result of the attorney’s incompetence; or , they must pay more money because they have to hire someone to fix the attorney’s error. An attorney can commit legal malpractice through failure to file documents on time, or through failure to properly research a case, for example. Other scenarios can involve missing deadlines, making serious mistakes at trial, failure to advise, and providing bad advice to a client. There are a variety of circumstances that can indicate possible legal malpractice.

Why You Should Hire a Legal Malpractice Lawyer

Legal malpractice cases are different from general malpractice cases because they tend to involve complex issues of both law and fact. Breach of fiduciary duty, comparative negligence, attorney’s fees and damages all have their own parameters that require highly specialized knowledge of the law in order to successfully resolve the matter. Many lawyers in San Francisco do general litigation but choose not to specialize in this legal arena.
Therefore, only legal malpractice attorneys like those of us at Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos, LLP have the comprehensive knowledge of the law as it relates to legal malpractice cases and the legal skill to effectively try such cases that can make the difference between resolving your case to your satisfaction and incurring the expense of litigation for a potentially unsatisfactory outcome.
Legal malpractice has a fairly short statute of limitations of 1 year. There are strict time periods in which to file a case. These time periods must be strictly adhered to. An experienced legal malpractice attorney can meaningfully explain all of the deadlines and help you to understand how they affect your case. In addition, if you are a victim of legal malpractice you may be limited in what you can sue your former attorney for due to the legal doctrine of comparative negligence or negligence by other parties. Only a legal malpractice attorney can help you understand how comparative negligence impacts the resolution of your case as well as the impact of other negligent parties.
Only an experienced legal malpractice attorney can help ensure that your rights are fully protected and that the legal malpractice case is masterfully guided for the best possible outcome.

Traits of a Great Legal Malpractice Lawyer

A good legal malpractice attorney should be more than merely an ethical lawyer. They should analyze your file and the prior lawyer’s records and see if there is a case. A red flag may be that the attorney does not lend full credibility to the prior attorney’s representation. That often suggests that the attorney is so sure he is better, that he won’t see that the case has little chance of success.
A good attorney will understand that malpractice requires both error and harm. Likewise, a good legal malpractice attorney will recognize the issue of a statute of limitations defense and get straight if they are too late. A good legal malpractice attorney accepts the case on a contingent basis, only charging if they win for you. This aligns their interest with yours (getting a recovery) and also demonstrates their belief in the case.
You may also want a good legal malpractice attorney as someone who can at least try to get some recovery out of the prior attorney before going to court. It is time consuming and painful to find out that the lawyer in question is not going to settle your case. Often the error is slight, but it is the difference between something and nothing. If the prior attorney has sufficient insurance, the insurer will want to do its best to avoid the litigation. For example, an attorney ignores a motion for summary judgment for six months. The attorney is subsequently substituted out of the case and the new attorney finds that the motion was supposed to be on calendar but the prior attorney never calendar it. However the case proceeded long and hard until the motion was finally heard five months later. If the new attorney did not lose the case, yet the prior attorney had a case, the new attorney should be entitled to a portion of the recovery. In this example, without a good legal malpractice attorney, this case would have been a waste.

The Path Your Legal Malpractice Case Takes in San Francisco

Most legal malpractice cases are conducted in a three part process. While generally similar, there could be significant differences based on the case and the people involved.
First an initial filing is needed. This filing sets out the basis for the legal malpractice claim and the plaintiff. In this claim, plaintiffs must answer some fairly simple questions; "What has been harmed, and how?" "Which attorney is responsible" and "Where were the damages incurred" (San Francisco?). The claim may is precluded from suing for damages which could have been recovered in the first lawsuit.
Then the case goes into mandatory mediation. While just a suggestion, mediation is required in most court systems in California. It makes sense to attempt to settle a matter before having to go through a trial. Sometimes claims can be settled sooner. Sometimes they need to go to court.
If the parties aren’t able to mediate a settlement, then the next logical step is a court trial. This would be decided in San Francisco court. Attorneys at the Legal Malpractice Center will be able to go through each stage of the process.

Tips on Locating the Best Legal Malpractice Lawyer in San Francisco

Once you have decided you need a legal malpractice attorney, there are many methods to finding a rough outline of the lawyer to use. These days reviews are available on line for most law firms. You can get a pretty good sense of the lawyers in terms of peer review, response time and result. Yelp can be a good source of information. Some people ask their lawyers for a referral, but these lawyers usually do not want to act as a referral source. Several members of the State Bar have said they will handle cases "on occasion." For the most part , that means they don’t want to take on an adverse situation with a former client. Referrals amongst lawyers are not as prevalent in litigation (as opposed to tax and real estate lawyers) so the best source is often the internet. Just think through the various ways of finding the "best" lawyer for your situation. The next step is analyzing the results of your research into the top San Francisco legal malpractice attorneys. Meeting with your short list of candidates is the first step. Once you are comfortable with your choice, you should take action. Choosing a legal malpractice lawyer is a big commitment and should not be made lightly.

Questions to Discuss with Your Lawyer

As with any professional engagement, you should set up an appointment to meet face-to-face with a potential legal malpractice attorney to determine if they are the right fit. During this meeting, you should evaluate them based on questions such as:
Does the lawyer practice legal malpractice exclusively or primarily?
Lawyers do not typically identify legal malpractice as a separate area of practice, and many lawyers market themselves as "litigators" and "trial attorneys." However, ask as many questions as you can, and know that there are lawyers who identify and practice as legal malpractice litigators.
Has the attorney been through the legal malpractice claims process?
Not every legal malpractice attorney has handled a legal malpractice claim, although many have had such claims brought against them. In either case, the attorney is not a stranger to the process and should be able to sympathetically navigate the situation for you.
How long does the attorney think it will take to achieve resolution in the case?
This is a subjective question. While timelines for resolution cannot necessarily be identified, your attorney should be able to give you an estimated time frame.
What is the projected cost?
Your attorney should have the ability to educate you about the cost of litigation, including the risks involved. The discussion should include what you will pay and when you will pay it, the risks associated with litigation, the available fee arrangements and whether the attorney will be willing to accept the case on a contingency fee basis.

How to Prepare for Your First Meeting

When bringing a potential case to an attorney, especially in California legal malpractice, the clients are not always sure what information they need to provide to the attorney. In most cases, the potential client should have the following information ready to provide to his/her attorney:
A written narrative of what happened, including as much detail as possible
The name of your former or current attorney involved in the case
Addresses and contact information of witnesses including experts that may be needed
Dates for the occurrence of specific events
Status of proceedings
Amount of damages so far (if necessary)
Copies of any motion/pleading filed in court as well as attachments to motions and pleadings (e.g. contracts, letters, etc.)
Copies of correspondence between your attorney and you.
Names of people you want to be witnesses
Questions you have for the attorney
This will help attorneys narrow down your concerns and questions and possibly avoid wasting valuable time during the consultation. If it is a legal malpractice case, it will provide the necessary background information to evaluate whether there is enough information to pursue a case, or if the statute of limitations has not yet lapsed.

End Result/Settlement Potential

There is a great deal of variability in potential outcomes in a legal malpractice case. Among the factors influencing the outcome are the amount of loss the client/client suffered, the size of the attorneys who will be named on the complaint (the attorney alone or the firm that employed the attorney); the extent of the defendant’s insurance; the prospects for court or jury sympathy (e.g. did the attorney engage in any form of theft or fraudulent conduct); the extent to which the settlement, if any, is sufficient to cover the malpractice loss; possible defenses which may set liability against practice standards; and whether the attorney will settle the case as opposed to fighting to minimize injury to his reputation. In San Francisco , potential settlements have several aspects. If liability and defendant’s insurance coverage is clear, a settlement can easily be reached prior to any formal suit being initiated. The insurance claim process will involve an investigation by the insurance company on behalf of the attorney, and settlement will depend upon the insurer’s view of the magnitude of the malpractice, its liability, and the collateral consequences for the attorney and firm. Depending upon the magnitude, the case may not be able to be settled without filing a suit, and "low dollar" cases in particular often do not go to this level because involved attorney firms are willing to pay a relatively small sum to make the claim disappear.