Academic journal article Defense Counsel Journal

End Run on Legal Malpractice Doesn't Require Privity

Academic journal article Defense Counsel Journal

End Run on Legal Malpractice Doesn't Require Privity

Article excerpt

End Run on Legal Malpractice Doesn't Require Privity

If a jurisdiction requires privity-that is, an attorney-client relationship-for a legal malpractice action, and there is no privity, don't worry if you're a Texas plaintiff. All you have to do change your cause of action to the tort of negligent misrepresentation. That's what the plaintiff did with the approval of the Supreme Court of Texas in McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 1999 WL 249713.

As attorneys for a savings and loan association, the McCamish firm certified that a settlement agreement between its client and a developer of recreational property complied with a federal statute so that the agreement would be enforceable against the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. Later the savings and loan became insolvent, and it turned out that it had relinquished its authority to sign the settlement agreement. Therefore, the law firm's certification was undermined.

Sued by the developer for negligent misrepresentation, the law firm contended that since the developer was not its client, there was no attorney-client privity as required by Texas law and that it owed no duty to the developer. The trial court bought this position, but the intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that even absent privity, an attorney may owe a duty to a third party to avoid negligent misrepresentation. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.