Legal malpractice cases are unique negligence actions where the parties must litigate a “case-within-a-case.” It is ironic that, within this framework, the malpractice lawyer who is defending an attorney-client often must argue against the merits of a cause of action or an issue that the attorney-client once advocated.
A northern Indiana law firm will have another opportunity to prevent a malpractice claim against it from moving forward after the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to the case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the firm.
After finding an order granting summary judgment to an Indianapolis law firm facing a legal malpractice claim was not a final order, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal challenging the summary judgment ruling.
A former associate of now-disgraced Indianapolis attorney William Conour scored a victory in the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday when the court found he did not breach a duty to one of Conour’s clients who accused him of providing inaccurate or misleading information.
The Indiana Supreme Court will not consider the issue of whether Indiana’s largest law firm was properly granted summary judgment in a legal malpractice suit, denying transfer to a case that raised concerns about attorneys’ ability to indemnify themselves against malpractice allegations.
After granting rehearing to clarify the difference between the instant legal malpractice case and previous malpractice caselaw, the Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday reaffirmed its previous decision to deny summary judgment to a northern Indiana law firm.
A law firm must face a malpractice suit for failing to file a tort claim notice on behalf of a woman who was seriously injured by an attacker and whose daughter was killed. The assailant was the subject of an active protective order that authorities failed to find before releasing him from jail.
Can agency immunity cover a lawyer's failure to file a tort claim notice and lawsuit?
A woman who lost her legal malpractice case against a law firm she said failed to timely bring negligence and wrongful death claims against the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s office will have her day before the Indiana Court of Appeals next week.
Roughly five years after former Indianapolis personal injury attorney William Conour was charged in a federal wire fraud case, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a legal malpractice action involving one of his ex-colleagues for alleged malpractice. One of Conour's victims claims the attorney's actions kept her in the dark about theft of her settlement money.
One of the state’s largest bar associations is speaking out against a bill in the Indiana General Assembly that would prohibit attorneys’ ability to prospectively release themselves from malpractice liability.
After granting a rehearing to adopt a previous holding by the Indiana Supreme Court, the Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday reaffirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barnes & Thornburg LLP on a legal malpractice claim.
A legal malpractice case against a northern Indiana law firm will proceed after the Indiana Court of Appeals held Friday that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the litigant’s original negligence claim would have succeeded but for the firm’s negligence.
A bill designed to prohibit attorneys from indemnifying themselves from legal malpractice claims is up for consideration by the Indiana House of Representatives, but some malpractice attorneys say the measure may not be necessary in light of existing rules of conduct.
The Indiana House of Representatives will soon consider a bill that, if passed, would prohibit attorneys from including malpractice indemnification clauses in their attorney-client agreements.
The lack of expert testimony in a yearslong bankruptcy case led to the appropriate grant of summary judgment to an Indiana attorney, the Indiana Court of Appeals found Tuesday.
Indiana’s largest law firm prevailed in defending a judgment in its favor in a legal malpractice suit, but an Indiana Court of Appeals judge took the opportunity to question whether lawyers should be able to shield themselves from liability for future acts of malpractice.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a woman’s complaint against her attorney, finding the trial court improperly dismissed it pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld long-standing precedent when it dismissed an appeal of an agreed judgment between a law firm and a couple that accused the firm of malpractice.
A law firm was properly granted summary judgment on a malpractice counter-complaint a bankruptcy client filed after the firm sued for nonpayment of legal fees.