About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through August 2019)

handle is hein.ali/rettlglyrs0058 and id is 1 raw text is: 





          THE LAw GOVERNING LAWYERS 3D



CHAPTER 3. CLIENT AND LAWYER: THE FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP

                        TOPIC   3. FEE-COLLECTION PROCEDURES

§ 43. Lawyer Liens

Ohio App.2018.  Subsec. (2)(b) quot. in sup. and quot. in case quot. in sup. Law firm that had entered
into a contingent-fee agreement with client that gave firm a charging lien on the proceeds of any
insurance settlement it obtained on client's behalf in connection with a car accident sued client,
opposing party, and opposing party's insurer, seeking payment of its legal fees and expenses after
insurer settled directly with client. The trial court granted summary judgment for firm, finding that
insurer was liable to firm for the quantum meruit value of its legal services, including litigation
expenses. Affirming, this court held that firm's charging lien was enforceable against insurer, because
insurer had knowledge of the lien before it settled client's claim and, despite this knowledge, distributed
the settlement proceeds solely to client. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of the Law
Governing Lawyers  § 43, a charging lien became binding on a third party when the party had notice of
the lien. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, L.L.C. v. Progressive Max Insurance Company, 110 N.E.3d 681,
686-688.



                          CHAPTER 4.   LAWYER CIVIL LIABILITY

 TOPIC  1. LIABILITY   FOR  PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
                                            DUTY

§ 53. Causation and Damages

Colo.App.2017.  Cit. in conc. and diss. op.; com. (b) quot. but not fol., quot. in conc. and diss. op. Client
brought an action for legal malpractice against attorney in connection with his representation of her in a
potential claim for medical malpractice against her physician. The trial court entered judgment on a jury
verdict finding that physician was negligent, and that client was entitled to an award of damages from
attorney. This court reversed and remanded, holding that there was no evidence as to whether any
potential judgment in an underlying medical-malpractice action against physician would have been
collectible, as required under Colorado law for client to prevail against attorney in her legal-malpractice
action. The court noted that, in any trial on remand, attorney had to raise the issue of whether the
judgment would have been collectible as an affirmative defense, and that attorney bore the burden of
proving that the debt was not collectible. The concurring and dissenting opinion argued that, under
Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 53, client had the burden of persuading the jury as
to the collectability of the judgment. Gallegos v. LeHouillier, 434 P.3d 698, 707, 712, 713.




                            COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
                                          All rights reserved
                                    Printed in the United States of America
          For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most