D
disasterdogs
Guest
What is the name of your state? Calif.
I have a question about attorney malpractice that I'm hoping somebody can shed some light on. Assuming there is a valid basis for a malpractice suit against an attorney, is it true that there is no recourse against a lawyer if he does not have malpractice insurance? I am trying to recover substantial losses caused by my attorney in his "mishandling" of two cases. The malpractice itself is clear, as is the damage he caused. I have a new attorney who is currently attempting to recover my case files from a very uncooperative former attorney. But he informed me that, should we discover that there was no insurance coverage, there is little hope. This man cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, left me disabled, in pain, and on the streets as a direct result of deceit, incompetence, and refusal to hand my files over to another attorney to properly handle the cases. I can't understand why he would be held accountable if insured, but get away with this if not covered. Isn't he still personally liable? Shouldn't lack of coverage stand as a point against him, not something that works in his favor? I really don't understand how that makes any sense. If I caused extreme damages knowingly to someone, any personal assets of mine would be at risk. How can it be otherwise for an attorney? Does anybody have any helpful info? Thanks!!
I have a question about attorney malpractice that I'm hoping somebody can shed some light on. Assuming there is a valid basis for a malpractice suit against an attorney, is it true that there is no recourse against a lawyer if he does not have malpractice insurance? I am trying to recover substantial losses caused by my attorney in his "mishandling" of two cases. The malpractice itself is clear, as is the damage he caused. I have a new attorney who is currently attempting to recover my case files from a very uncooperative former attorney. But he informed me that, should we discover that there was no insurance coverage, there is little hope. This man cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, left me disabled, in pain, and on the streets as a direct result of deceit, incompetence, and refusal to hand my files over to another attorney to properly handle the cases. I can't understand why he would be held accountable if insured, but get away with this if not covered. Isn't he still personally liable? Shouldn't lack of coverage stand as a point against him, not something that works in his favor? I really don't understand how that makes any sense. If I caused extreme damages knowingly to someone, any personal assets of mine would be at risk. How can it be otherwise for an attorney? Does anybody have any helpful info? Thanks!!