This essay reviews Herbert Kritzer and Neil Vidmar's book, When Lawyers Screw Up: Improving Access To Justice For Legal Malpractice Victims, which examines legal malpractice in the United States including, inter alia, its prevalence, the nature of claims, their resolution and cost, the market for legal malpractice insurance, and the challenges and economics of legal malpractice litigation. The essay focuses particular attention on the authors' findings that many individuals are unable to obtain redress when their lawyers cause them harm. This is due, in part, to the difficulty of proving lawyer malpractice claims, and to the fact that the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. As a result, it is virtually impossible for a malpractice victim to find a lawyer who will bring a lawsuit against an uninsured lawyer or to recover damages even when they are awarded. The essay considers why only two states require lawyers to maintain malpractice insurance. The answer reveals a common problem with lawyer regulation, which is that courts often defer to lawyers' interests rather than promote the interests of the public. The essay discusses some of the solutions the authors propose to address this access to justice problem. It also suggests some additional ways to increase access to justice for victims of lawyer malpractice, including through an expanded role for lawyer discipline systems.

Unhappy clients bring thousands of legal malpractice claims every year, against mega law firms and solo practitioners, for simple errors or egregious misconduct, and for losses than can reach $100 million or more. This in an industry, legal services, generating nearly $300 billion a year in revenue and touching every facet of American society. Yet, scant if any scholarly attention has been paid to the questions and consequences of lawyers' professional liability. This book is the first to fully explore the mistakes lawyers sometimes make, the nature of these mistakes, the harm they do, and the significant disparities in outcomes for corporate and individual victims of lawyers' errors. A systematic, empirical study of legal malpractice, When Lawyers Screw Up employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the frequency and nature of claims, the area of practice producing them, the amounts at stake, and the resolutions. The authors also use a range of data sources to study the frequency and outcomes of legal malpractice trials, whether bench or jury. Their comparison of legal malpractice cases involving the corporate and personal service sectors reveal the difficulties confronting claims coming from the personal sector—difficulties that often deny victims redress, even when they have suffered significant harm. When Lawyers Screw Up draws on a series of interviews to describe the practices of lawyers with expertise in handling legal malpractice claims, even as it notes how few such experts are available to prosecute these claims. In light of their findings, the authors suggest a range of reforms that would help victims of legal malpractice, particularly individuals and small businesses, in pursuing their claims.

The legal rights of Americans are threatened as never before. In No Contest, Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith reveal how power lawyers--Kenneth Starr perhaps the most notorious among them--misuse and manipulate the law at the expense of fairness and equity. Nader and Smith document how corporate lawyers File baseless lawsuits Use court secrecy to their unfair advantage Engage in billing fraud Nader and Smith sound the warning that this system-wide abuse is eroding our basic legal rights, and propose a positive, commonsense vision of what should be done to reverse the corporate-inspired corruption of civil justice. Timely, incisive, and highly readable, this is a book for all citizens who believe that prompt access to justice is the backbone of democracy, and a precious right to be reclaimed.

"Reading this book would profit any advocate of any experience level. Judicious application of the advice contained in the book will make anyone a better advocate."-- Bob Dekle, Legal Skills Professor, University of Florida, and retired assistant state attorney.

In 1776, Thomas Paine declared the end of royal rule in the United States. Instead, “law is king,” for the people rule themselves. Paine’s declaration is the dominant American understanding of how political power is exercised. In making law king, American lawyers became integral to the exercise of political power, so integral to law that legal ethics philosopher David Luban concluded, “lawyers are the law.” American lawyers have defended the exercise of this power from the Revolution to the present by arguing their work is channeled by the profession’s standards of ethical behavior. Those standards demand that lawyers serve the public interest and the interests of their paying clients before themselves. The duties owed both to the public and to clients meant lawyers were in the marketplace selling their services, but not of the marketplace. This is the story of power and the limits of ethical constraints to ensure such power is properly wielded. The Lawyer’s Conscience is the first book examining the history of American lawyer ethics, ranging from the mid-eighteenth century to the “professionalism” crisis facing lawyers today.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

An indictment of the practice of gross billable hours among lawyers, which encourages them to accumulate as much hours as possible on a case, penalizing efficiency and competence, offers ideas for protecting oneself against it. IP.