Hello. My name is George, and I am a weblogging lawyer. I would like to take this occasion to thank Walter Olson for the opportunity to guestblog this week at Overlawyered. I will be posting starting today — I have two posts below and more in the hopper — and will continue here through next Monday (ho ho ho). Beginning next Tuesday, December 26, Walter promises two special guests who will step in and post you through to the new year.
I am one half of a two-man law firm in Pasadena, California, and I reached my 25th year in practice earlier this month. That practice has emphasized insurance law (representing both insurers and insureds), professional liability defense (representing veterinarians), general business litigation and civil appeals. I am more of a "law-lawyer" than a "fact-lawyer," generally happier writing and arguing motions and appeals than in showing off for a jury.
For the past three and a half years, I have maintained two weblogs of my own. Declarations and Exclusions is devoted to "News and Comment on California Insurance Law, the Politics of Insurance, and Other Risky Business." My non-law-related interests are vented through a fool in the forest, where I write about books, music, art, poetry, random nonsense, and culture both high and low.
Again, I offer profuse thanks to Walter and to all at Overlawyered, and thanks in advance to Overlawyered readers. I hope to contribute at least a little something worthwhile to the ongoing conversation on law and personal responsibility over the next seven days.
2 Comments
a man of wealth and taste, indeed. but, it sure is difficult trying to cover all of your website postings, George. Please don’t spread yourself too thin (or forget your Forest).
Mr. Wallace: Trick test question.
Do attorneys have expressly enumerated duties to adverse third parties? For example, are these listed in the Rules of Conduct, the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil and of Criminal Procedure?
If these duties are express, how does one explain the privity obstacle to legal malpractice actions against lawyers by the adverse third party.
The “adverse third party” is a neutral term, implying the plaintiff should be able to sue the defense attorney for a frivolous defense. To deter.
The wrongful use of a civil procedure or the abuse of process claim requires jumping over the nearly impossible obstacle of proving malice or scienter or actual animus toward the adverse third party. Short of a recording of such, these never succeed, and are irrelevant.
How do the lawyers justify this self-dealt immunity?
As an insurance lawyer, you should support statutes enabling the application of the law of torts and of the Rules of Civil Procedure to the attorney in a legal malpractice case.
This is not loser pays. This is loser pays if an expert in his legal specialty certifies that the attorney has deviated from professonial standards of due care.