NJ: The Importance of Interpretation

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Ben Wasserman

Carney v. Finn, 367 A.2d 458 (1976)

NJ: Underlying Workmen’s Compensation case

Student Contributor: Laura Binski

Facts: In June of 1972, a lawyer handled three claim petitions for the client in the Division of Workmen’s Compensation. The client alleges that the lawyer’s poor handling of the case resulted in the client receiving a lower reward. In January of 1975, the client filed a claim of legal malpractice against the lawyer. The lawyer’s reply to the client’s complaint asserted that the claim was prohibited by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, a two-year statute of limitations. The trial judge sided with the lawyer and dismissed the client’s complaint for failure to meet the two-year statute of limitations.

Issue: What is the applicable statute of limitations in this legal malpractice claim?

Ruling: The trial court was incorrect to dismiss the complaint under the two-year statute of limitations. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, a six-year statute of limitations, is appropriate in cases of “tortious injury to the rights of another… or for recovery upon a contractual claim or liability.” N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, the two-year statute of limitations that the trial court relied upon, is only appropriate for “an injury to the person caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person.” The court reasoned that the two-year statute is only applicable to complaints of physical or emotional injury to the person. Since the client’s complaint is not one of personal injury, but rather of negligent handling of his Workmen’s Compensation claim, the six-year statute should have been applied.

Lesson: This case shows the importance of applying the appropriate statute to a particular complaint. It is necessary to carefully read the language of each statute in order to interpret its meaning. A plain reading of both statutes easily shows that there was no need for the client’s complaint to be dismissed for failure to meet the two-year statute of limitations.  

Tags: , ,

NY: Lawyer Liability Beyond the Scope of the Engagement

Posted on February 17, 2010 by Claudia A. Costa

Thompson v. Seligman 53 A.D.3d 1019, 863 N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2008)

NY: Underlying personal injury; workers compensation

Student Contributor: Ryan M. O'Donnell

Facts: Plaintiff was employed by AMFAC Recreational Services, Inc. AMFAC regularly provided cleaning services to the Gideon Putnam Hotel. While performing her duties cleaning at the Gideon, plaintiff suffered injuries and retained defendant attorney to represent her in a workman’s compensation claim. When plaintiff inquired about a possible claim for pain and suffering against the Gideon, defendant advised her that she could not pursue a claim, based on his mistaken belief that plaintiff was employed by the hotel. Plaintiff then consulted with a different attorney who advised her that she did have a claim against the Gideon, except for that the statute of limitations had expired.

 Issue: Can a mistaken assumption by an attorney give rise to a legal malpractice claim?

Ruling: Yes.

“An attorney has the responsibility to investigate and prepare every phase of his or her client’s case.”

There was sufficient documentation that stated plaintiff’s employer was AMFAC, not the Gideon. Had defendant made the appropriate inquiry he would have known that plaintiff was not employed by the Gideon, and that plaintiff could have a third party claim against the Gideon for pain and suffering. The defendant’s failure to investigate the availability of a third party claim by plaintiff raises a question of fact whether the defendant exercised an appropriate duty of care to the client. 

Lesson: As an attorney, you have the responsibility to investigate and prepare every phase of your client’s case. If there is information that will further the interests of your client that is easily ascertainable, and you fail to use such information, you have breached your duty of care to your client. Unless the client actively misrepresents information to you, you can be liable for malpractice if your mistaken assumption would have been corrected by further inquiry.

Tags: , , , ,