Law Practice,
Ethics/Professional Responsibility
Jan. 16, 2016
Lawyers as defendants in 2015, Part 1
We continue with our analysis of Bergstein from last Friday, now focusing on the decision's statute of limitations analysis.
Kenneth C. Feldman
Partner
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Certified Specialist in Legal Malpractice
633 W 5th St Ste 4000
Los Angeles , CA 90071
Phone: (213) 250-1800
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: Ken.Feldman@lewisbrisbois.com
Loyola Law School
Kenneth is firm-wide chair of the legal malpractice defense group at Lewis Brisbois. He is a certified specialist, legal malpractice law, State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, and is vice chair of the State Bar Legal Malpractice Law Advisory Commission. Mr. Feldman is the author of "California Legal Malpractice & Malicious Prosecution Liability Handbook."
Alex A. Graft
Partner
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Email: alex.graft@lewisbrisbois.com
Alex is a certified specialist in legal malpractice law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. He represents a wide range of professionals in addition to defending lawyers.
Last Friday we concluded with a discussion of the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute in the context of Bergstein v. Strook & Strook & Lavan, 236 Cal. App. 4th 793 (2015). ["Lawyers as defendants in 2015," Jan. 8]. Now, we continue with Bergstein's statute of limitations analysis, before addressing cases involving the favorable termination element in malicious prosecution actions, and the duty and causation elements underlying malpractice claims, each of which was a foc...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In