Legal malpractice

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an interesting observation that often puzzles me. Doctors are often subject to malpractice suits when they screw up. But one rarely hears about legal malpractice.

After tthinking about this I could only come up with a few possibilites.
1. Lawyers are perfect and never make mistakes.
2.Lawyers are self policing and cut each other infinite slack.

In the medical community, they are also self policing and willing to see and apply cases of malpractice. When an outside agency, such as lawyers gets involved, the range of malpractice increases. This could mean that self policing is not the best policy since it cuts too much good ole boy slack. Maybe lawyers need an outside agency to help make the system more accountable for potental malpractice settlements.

One group that comes to mind are the doctors. Doctors have more eduction than lawyers and should be smart enough to see malpractice, since they are given plenty of training by the lawyers.

[InfiniteNow]

Lawyers are the ones who define what malpractice is. Perhaps the analogy would hold if lawyers were prescribing wrong medications, but ultimately they CAN be sued if the client feels they were unfairly represented. Like I said, I don't think your analogy holds water, but if I push that aside, I'm not sure what your point is anyway?

Also, education is only peripherally related to intelligence. There are always individual differences, despite the profession being discussed.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Bond

Here is an interesting observation that often puzzles me. Doctors are often subject to malpractice suits when they screw up. But one rarely hears about legal malpractice.

After tthinking about this I could only come up with a few possibilites.
1. Lawyers are perfect and never make mistakes.
2.Lawyers are self policing and cut each other infinite slack.

3. Lawyers can and do get sued for malpractice but you never hear of it.
4. Your founding premise that one rarely hears of cases in which lawyers are sued for malpractice is entirely false.

The answer is either 3 or 4 depending on what type of stuff you read.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is an interesting observation that often puzzles me. Doctors are often subject to malpractice suits when they screw up. But one rarely hears about legal malpractice.

I, too, was under the impression that legal malpractice suits are very rare, possibly almost unheard of.

However, as sebbysteiny notes, and according to this quickly googled reference, ”legal malpractice attorney statistics”, more than 35,000 malpractice claims were filed in the US against lawyers in 2003, about 12,000 of which were successful. The medical malpractice claims rate in the US has been around 90,000 claims/year since the early 90s, with about 30% of those claims settled in the plaintiff’s favor, so while substantially less frequent than medical malpractice suites, legal malpractice is not unheard of.

I’m unsure why this is not more common knowledge.

[Boerseun]

Also, a lawyer can only practice his dark and magical arts when he's a member of some form of bar association. And this bar can then be said to be the self-policing mechanism amongst lawyers, because for malpractice they can be kicked from the bar, and won't be able to practice any more.

[C1ay]

There are plenty of legal malpractice suits. The media is uninterested though. What's the point on reporting snakebites amongst snakes. FWIW. malpractice is common with many types of professionals...

[HydrogenBond]

Let me give an example, if one has a medical condition, if they have money they can see the best specialist. If they don't have money, they may have to settle for someone cheaper with less skill. The result could be a negative consequence leading to a possible malpractice suit.

If we do this with lawyers, one can also buy better legal assistance for any crime (legal condition), allowing one a better shake from the legal system (successful operation). If one can only afford free legal help and gets a worse outcome than what is possible, this is not treated the same way as a cheaper doctor creating less than optimum results.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Let me give an example, if one has a medical condition, if they have money they can see the best specialist. If they don't have money, they may have to settle for someone cheaper with less skill. The result could be a negative consequence leading to a possible malpractice suit.

That's patentaly not true. Why is it that you have posted frankly demonising attacks against an honest professions simply because you do not know much about it nor do you know anything about malpractice.

If a doctor holds himself out as being an expert, particularly if he charges for it, you can legally expect a higher standard than someone who you pay very little for. So if you pay for a cheaper worse doctor, you will not be successful in suing him for giving a poorer service.

You also seem obsessed with this idea that lawers are self regulating simply because they form associations. You've mentioned it before too. But all doctors are members of hospitals and other organisational bodies. So are accountants and so are almost every profession. Being a member of such a society does not effect the ability to sue in the courts for malpractice or neglegence. All it means is that the lawyers themselves could disbar certain individuals who breach their ethical code. It leads to more remedies against bad lawyers, not less. Everybody should be happy now. Except perhaps those with a vendetta against the legal system or those who have read too much John Grisham or seen too many movies.

So fact, all professions are self regulating. Even in the courts, the judge often needs expert evidence to say what normal service is, which is in fact a self regulating mechanism.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Let me give an example, if one has a medical condition, if they have money they can see the best specialist. If they don't have money, they may have to settle for someone cheaper with less skill. The result could be a negative consequence leading to a possible malpractice suit.

If we do this with lawyers, one can also buy better legal assistance for any crime (legal condition), allowing one a better shake from the legal system (successful operation). If one can only afford free legal help and gets a worse outcome than what is possible, this is not treated the same way as a cheaper doctor creating less than optimum results.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. If one cannot afford a heart doctor and goes to a general practice doctor and the general practice doctor treats the conditions he is not trained for or experienced in, that doctor has performed malpractice (bad practice). If the doctor cannot work on hearts he is expected to tell the patient this and refer him/her to a heart doctor.

OTOH, if a criminal cannot afford the top defense lawyer in the field then there is nothing wrong with him getting the representation he can afford, even if it is only the public defender. There is no entitlement to experience. OTOH, if he finds a real estate lawyer willing to fight his/her criminal case then that lawyer has committed malpractice by accepting a case he/she has not trained for or earned experience in.