Horvitz & Levy LLP - Legal Malpractice Practice

	Practice Areas Index
	California Supreme Court Cases
	U.S. Supreme Court Cases
	Why Hire An Appellate Expert?
	Por qué Emplear un Especialista en Apelaciones

	Search our site

	DISCLAIMER

Legal Malpractice

Horvitz & Levy LLP has played a significant role in virtually every area of professional liability (e.g., employer liability, insurance bad faith liability), and the legal malpractice area is no exception. (See a list of representative legal malpractice appeals handled by the firm.)

In one of our most recent cases, Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, the jury awarded $223,824,560, which included $221,389,400 in punitive damages the jury believed the plaintiff would have recovered in the underlying case but for his attorney's alleged malpractice. On appeal, we persuaded the court that an attorney who negligently fails to recover punitive damages for his or her client should not be liable in a subsequent legal malpractice action for "lost punitive damages."

In another significant appeal handled by the firm, Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2 Cal.4th 606, the California Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the lower courts by endorsing our argument that, in a legal malpractice action based on an attorney's negligent handling of a trial, the statute of limitations on the client's legal malpractice action is not tolled by the client's appeal from the adverse trial court judgment.

The firm has successfully defended attorneys in numerous other appeals, including United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327 (vacating $2 million judgment), Hauben v. Scope (1994) (nonpub. opn.) (reversing punitive damages award in its entirety and reducing $300,000 compensatory damages award to $75,000), and Holliday v. Jones (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 102 (attorney's duty in representing client in a criminal case does not extend to the client's family members).

Finally, Horvitz & Levy LLP has successfully represented clients harmed by attorney malpractice. For example, in Baker & McKenzie v. Contemporary Services Corp. (Dec. 27, 2000, B125175) (nonpub. opn.), we obtained a reversal of a judgment of nonsuit on our client's cross-complaint for malpractice, based on the trial court's erroneous exclusion of evidence. Similarly, in Midland National Life Insurance Co. v. A. Todd Hindin (May 18, 1999, B107887) (nonpub. opn.), the Court of Appeal reversed nonsuits on two claims of malpractice asserted by our client against the defendant attorney.