Lay et al. v. Bumpass, CA: 3:11-CV-1543 (M.D.P.A. 2012) is a case which examines the correct place to file a complaint for legal malpractice. This particular decision was based in part on the filing of the complaint in the Middle district of Pennsylvania based on diversity, meaning the plaintiffs were citizens making an allegation against a Defendant from a different state. The facts of the case are below.
Vazquez v. Macri et al., No: A-3572-10T1 (N.J. Super. 2012) is a New Jersey state case which discusses when an expert is needed to define the professional standard of care. In the original trial, the case was dismissed in the defendant attorney's favor because no expert witness was produced. On appeal, the Plaintiff's main argument was that lay jurors could replace experts in this limited circumstance. The appeals court showed particularly why pre-litigation discovery, specifically depositions are so important in proper case preparation.
Highwater v. Animus, CA No.: 12-3206, (E.D.P.A. Oct. 10, 2012) is an employment discrimination case. The main issue analyzed by the court is when an action must be brought to be within the statute of limitations. These issues are not as easy as one would think because the statute begins to run in employment discrimination cases from the point at which the discriminatory act is performed.
Wagner v. Open Road Auto Group, No.: A-5312-10T3, (N.J. Super. App. Div. Jan. 10, 2012) is an employment discrimination case which analyzes the impact of arbitration agreements on discrimination claims. Many times, when employment is offered to a person, the employment may be conditioned upon acceptance of an arbitration agreement. In this case, the Plaintiff reported a supervisor's sexual harassment of other employees to a supervisor. After reporting said conduct, he was fired, for what he alleged was complaining to authorities. The arbitration agreement signed during employment stated:
Often times, the attorney-client relationship is noteworthy for the confidentiality which is imbued within communications between the parties. Thus, when a plaintiff files a legal malpractice action, certain privileges relating to representation are automatically waived. What those privileges are is not always the same. This issue is seen in an order fromO'Kinsky v. Perrone, CA: No. 10-6075, Memorandum Order (October 11 2012, E.D.P.A.).The case was a malpractice action filed against a defendant law firm, but did not include the lawyer who actually represented the plaintiff. During the ensuing deposition, defendants' attorneys asked questions of the plaintiff which were objected to on the basis of attorney-client privilege.