.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Risk Management as a Critical Component of Your Law Practice

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2023

January 1, 2023

by Alesia S. Sulock

A critical aspect of the practice of law is managing risk. Attorneys routinely evaluate and advise clients of the risks associated with representation matters, but it is equally important for lawyers to manage their own risks arising from their practice. Risk management begins at the outset of the representation and should continue until the representation concludes. 

The first critical step in risk management is client selection. Attorneys should choose their clients as carefully as clients select their lawyers. The lawyer should consider the reasonableness of the client’s expectations, the client’s motivations, the client’s ability to pay and other factors in deciding whether to accept the representation. The lawyer must complete a conflicts analysis and be able to competently represent the client. Once the lawyer accepts the representation, an engagement agreement should be prepared and signed by the client which details the identity of the client, the scope of the engagement, the fee arrangement, and file retention and destruction procedures.

Risk management continues throughout the representation. Attorneys should remain in regular communication with their clients, managing client expectations and keeping clients updated on developments that impact earlier assessments of the matter. The lawyer must explain the matter sufficiently to allow the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Even if there are no major developments, it is a best practice to regularly check in with your clients. Attorneys should have processes in place to calendar deadlines and supervise staff working on matters.

At the conclusion of the representation, attorneys should provide clients with a disengagement letter, communicating in writing that the representation has ended. If you fail to affirmatively end your engagement, you may still be engaged. 

By following these best practices throughout the representation, you may be able to avoid legal malpractice claims or disciplinary matters or, at a minimum, set up a strong defense should problems later arise.
 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.