Wiley Rein LLP has extensive experience and expertise representing lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, and other professionals across the country in defending malpractice and other claims. Both professionals with the right to select their own defense counsel and insurance carriers with the right to retain counsel to defend their insured professionals turn to Wiley Rein for cases with high exposure or that raise important and complex issues.
Wiley Rein handles all aspects of many professional liability malpractice defense cases from their inception. Other times, professionals or their insurance carriers retain Wiley Rein as co-counsel with another firm, charging Wiley Rein with primary responsibility for identifying the key legal issues, posturing those issues for resolution on motion, and briefing and arguing dispositive motions. Likewise, clients often retain Wiley Rein as appellate counsel following an unfavorable result at the trial court level.
Wiley Rein's goal in defending all professional liability claims is to obtain the best possible result for the client in a cost-efficient manner. In some instances, the client is best served by aggressively pursuing a pre-suit settlement, before malpractice allegations are made public. Other times, it is critical for the professional to be vindicated by prevailing on the merits in a final decision, at trial, or on appeal. Often, vigorous defense of a case best serves the client's interest by posturing it for a favorable settlement at an opportune moment. No two cases are the same.
Confidentiality concerns preclude identification of the firm's professional liability clients in most instances. Representative examples of malpractice defense cases handled by attorneys now affiliated with Wiley Rein are set forth below, but with identifying information included only as to certain publicly reported matters.
- Represented a prominent family-law firm in a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging malpractice in connection with a former client's divorce. After full discovery, our lawyers filed motions for summary judgment on a causation theory and to exclude the former client's damages expert from testifying. After the hearing on those motions, at which the trial court commented favorably on their merits, we negotiated a confidential settlement on terms much more favorable to the firm than had been available before the motions hearing.
- Represented a prominent District of Columbia lawyer in a closely watched legal malpractice case brought by a Nobel Prize laureate. Our lawyers prevailed on a motion in limine in advance of trial to preclude $4 million of the alleged $5 million of damages. We then successfully represented the lawyer in a nine-day jury trial, obtaining a verdict that the lawyer did not breach the standard of care.
- Retained as appellate counsel following a large jury verdict against a law firm in Ohio. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and directed entry of judgment for the law firm. The Supreme Court's decision is widely regarded as the most important lawyers professional liability case in Ohio in many years. It clarified considerable confusion in Ohio law regarding the causation element of legal malpractice claim and is now an important precedent often used to defend claims against lawyers. ENC v. Goodman Weiss Miller, LLP, 893 N.E.2d 173 (Ohio 2008) (The appellate argument presented on April 22, 2008 by Richard A. Simpson, now of Wiley Rein, may be viewed on the Ohio Supreme Court's website: http://www.OhioChannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=113208).
- Represented two Maryland lawyers in the trial court and on appeal in a legal malpractice case based on the late filing of a notice of appeal following an adverse decision in an underlying commercial litigation matter. We obtained summary judgment, without discovery being permitted, and affirmance of the summary judgment on appeal, on the ground that the court could determine as a matter of law that an appeal in the underlying case would have been unsuccessful, and that the legal malpractice plaintiffs could not meet the causation element of their claim. Chesapeake Express Couriers, Inc. v. Rubin, No. 117 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 14, 2009).
- Retained as appellate counsel for an engineering firm following entry of a $4 million judgment in a complex professional liability case arising from construction of a parking facility at John Wayne Orange County Airport. The appeal resulted in reversal of the judgment in substantial part. McCarthy Building Cos., Inc. v. Teng Li & Assocs., No. G030544, 2005 WL 1532274 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 30, 2005).
- Retained as appellate counsel for an Ohio accounting firm following entry of an above-limits judgment in a professional liability case raising significant issues regarding Ohio's witness immunity doctrine, proximate causation, and the nature of recoverable damages. Our lawyers obtained a favorable resolution of the case before appellate decision.
- Currently representing a Florida law firm in defending a legal malpractice claim brought by a client arising out of a multi-million-dollar real estate development deal.
- Currently representing a Connecticut accounting firm in defending claims arising from the Madoff fraud.
- Represented as appellate counsel an engineering firm and a landscape architectural firm in a New York case that settled on favorable terms while the appeal was pending.
- Represented a California law firm in defending legal malpractice claims brought by an insurance carrier that had retained the firm to provide coverage advice.
- Retained as co-counsel for a national engineering firm to handle dispositive motions practice in a Florida professional liability claim.
- Represented a Tennessee law firm in defending various lawyers professional liability claims.
- Represented a national law firm in defending legal malpractice claims arising from its international trade practice.
- Represented a Virginia matrimonial lawyer in defending legal malpractice claims.
Richard A. Simpson
202.719.7314 | email@example.com
ISSUE: AUGUST 2014
IN THIS ISSUE
- Qui Tam Settlement Is Disgorgement Not Covered Under a D&O Policy
- No Coverage for Claims Arising out of Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme
- Settlement Returning Overdraft Fees Deemed Potentially Insurable
- Court Refuses to Stay Rescission Action Pending Outcome of Underlying Proceeding
- Single Complaint Triggers Two Policy Periods
- Additional Insured Under One Coverage Part of Policy Determined Not Additional Insured Under Another Coverage Part
- Prior Acts Exclusion and Insolvency Exclusion Bar Coverage for Claim Against Broker
- Court Finds Fact Issue Regarding Whether Attorney Misconduct Could Reasonably Be Expected To Give Rise to a Claim
- Louisiana Direct Action Statute Does Not Preclude Enforcement of Reporting Requirements in Claims-Made-and-Reported Policies
- Michigan Statute Excusing Failure to Comply with Notice Requirements Can Apply to Claims-Made Policies
- Undefined Term “Claim” in a Claims-Made-and-Reported Policy Means a Demand for Relief or Damages
- District Court Holds Damages for Negligence and Breach of Contract Are “Indivisible”
- Fraud in Application Voids Law Firm’s Professional Liability Policy
- Timely Notice of Initial Claim Excuses; Untimely Notice of Subsequent Related Claims
- Umbrella Policies Triggered Even When Underlying Policies Exhausted by Payment of Damages Not Covered by Umbrella Policies
- Insurer with Knowledge of Potential Claim Cannot Agree with Insured to Cancel Policy
- Inconsistent Policy Provisions Render Policy Ambiguous as to Coverage for Attorney Advertising
- Court Won’t Strike “Expert” Report by Broker on Application Ambiguity and Best Practices
- Professional Services Exclusion Unambiguously Excludes Coverage for Negligent Building Design
- Criminal Conduct Exclusion Bars Indemnity Coverage for Suit Against Insured Who Pled Guilty to Criminal Misconduct
- No Coverage for Claim First Reported to Insurer Two Years After Expiration of Claims-Made-and-Reported-Policy
- Demands for Payment on Foreign Exchange Transaction Agreements Were Not Claims for Wrongful Acts
- Self-Insurance Policy Considered Primary Insurance Due to Pro Rata Other Insurance Clause
- Medical Records Request Not a “Claim”
- Fee Exclusion Applies to Malpractice Litigation Where “Essential Character of the Dispute” Concerned Fees
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
RECENT NEWSWiley Rein Named Washington, DC Litigation Department of the Year for Insurance by The National Law Journal
June 30, 2014
Wiley Rein’s Insurance Practice Launches Professional Liability Blog
June 9, 2014