Louisiana law recognizes that an attorney’s primary and paramount duty is to the client. It has been said that in no other agency relationship is a greater duty of trust imposed than in the attorney-client relationship. The law is not ambiguous and provides no uncertainty when it comes to defining the character of the duty owed by an attorney to the client. The attorney-client relationship is more than just a contract. Indeed, the attorney-client relationship involves a trust status of the highest order and imposes on the attorney the imperative duty of insuring that all dealings with the client are performed with the strictest fidelity and honor.
A claim for legal malpractice is premised upon the existence of an attorney-client relationship and some negligence or professional impropriety by the attorney, in the furtherance of the attorney and client relationship, which negligence or professional impropriety caused the client some measure of loss. In the context of an alleged claim of legal malpractice, the client has the burden of proving the existence of the attorney-client relationship, the negligence or professional impropriety, and the damage suffered as a result.
The standard in proving the negligence or professional impropriety is to prove that the attorney failed to exercise at least that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is exercised by prudent practicing attorneys in the attorney’s locality. Typically, a client alleging legal malpractice will retain an expert witness, both to establish the standard of care for prudent attorneys in the relevant locality, and to prove the attorney’s actions fell below the appropriate standard of care. However, expert witness testimony is not necessary when the alleged legal malpractice is obvious or gross error, in which instances the court may take judicial notice of the substandard conduct. It is important to note that an attorney is not required to exercise perfect judgement.
A claim for legal malpractice must be asserted within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect was discovered, or should have been discovered, provided it is not longer than three years from the alleged act, omission or neglect. This time-frame begins on the date on which a reasonable person in the position of the client would have or should have either actual or constructive knowledge of the act, omission or neglect. Mere apprehension of the client will not necessarily begin computing the time unless the client knew or should have known, with due diligence, that the problem may have been the result of an act, omission or neglect on the part of the attorney.
Cle’ Simon
For more than 75 years the Simon family has carried on a family tradition of restoring lives in local communities and throughout the stat of Louisiana. At Simon Law Offices, I have proudly embraced this tradition and strive every day to continue the legacy. Simon Law Offices are Cajun Strong and restoring lives throughout Louisiana, one client at a time.
