With court closures and the cancellation or postponement of jury trials for the indefinite future, some insurance companies appear to be ready and willing to still resolve personal injury cases. In difficult economic times, this may sound like welcome news to injured plaintiffs who want their case to continue towards resolution. But beware! There is a danger that defendants/insurance companies are attempting to bottom feed. That is, they are looking to see if injured persons will settle their cases for less than their reasonable settlement value during these difficult times. Decisions to settle your case are based upon many factors, but the one constant is that the decision to settle is the client’s to make, and your lawyer’s job is to see that you are reasonably informed on the important factors that go into your decision. Be an informed consumer when it comes to your personal injury case. Make sure your attorney has taken steps to properly value your case, and explained this to you. If your lawyer has advised you to resolve your case for less than its reasonable settlement value during the COVID-19 Pandemic, make sure you get answers to why. Remember, lawyers have an ethical obligation to explain matters to you so you can make informed decisions.
A victim of legal malpractice recently lost her case in Hartford Superior Court because she did not prove that her lawyer’s professional negligence caused her harm. The plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell and brought suit against a local municipality alleging that her accident was caused by a defect in the road which caused her to trip. Her case against the municipality was thrown out of court, however, because her personal injury lawyer made a procedural mistake, and failed to provide the required written notice of the claim to the municipality. As a result, the plaintiff hired another attorney and filed a legal malpractice law suit against her first lawyer. On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff lost her legal malpractice case when the Hartford Superior Court ruled that, although the plaintiff shown that her prior lawyer had committed malpractice, the plaintiff did not prove that she would have won her case against the municipality. The plaintiff’s legal malpractice lawyer argued that he did not need to show that the plaintiff would have won her case against the municipality, but merely that the plaintiff lost the opportunity to pursue her case against the municipality because of her first lawyer’s malpractice. However, as the court said in dismissing the legal malpractice case, “that is not the law.” Victims of legal malpractice are reminded that when they get to trial, they and their new counsel must be ready to prove not only legal malpractice, but also to prove that they would have prevailed in the underlying case if not for the legal malpractice.
