- Lowenstein Sandler LLP – Thoughts on a Recent Malpractice Case
- Being sued, even if the case resolves favorably, is traumatic, costly, inhibits the ability to practice because of the time demands of the suit, and
- How practitioners might conduct their practices with an eye toward what you can do to reduce the likelihood that a client will become unhappy and sue?
- What different or additional language might be added to retainer agreements?
- What approaches might be used to apprise clients of the risks inherent in many estate planning transactions? What approaches might be counter-productive?
- Should the rules of professional conduct governing attorneys be reconsidered as to restrictions on liability limitations given the current planning environment?
- How do other allied professionals address liability limitations and what might that mean to estate planning attorneys?
- Might mandatory arbitration provisions be beneficial and, if beneficial, are they permissible for attorneys under ethics rules?
Raia v. Lowenstein Sandler LLP – Thoughts on a Recent Malpractice Case
Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning
Email Newsletter Archive Message #2725
“A recent New Jersey malpractice case, Raia v. Lowenstein Sandler LLP (‘Raia’),i has served as the catalyst for discussions among many advisers. Regardless of how Raia is resolved, and at this preliminary juncture only a complaint has been filed, some of the issues it raises directly and indirectly, are important for practitioners to consider. Among the issues that practitioners might wish to ponder are:
While Raia served as the catalyst for this newsletter, the implications of the allegations contained in the Raia complaint are much broader.”
We close the week with commentary on Raia v. Lowenstein Sandler LLP
by Martin M. Shenkman, Sandra Glazier and Howard Zartisky
Here is their commentary:
No related posts.