[HSF] Standard of care for lawyers

[Nasser F. Abou'Seada]

""Isolated instances of ordinary negligence or errors of judgement do not
rise to the level of a disciplinary violation and are not sufficient to
warrant disciplinary action.? ???As stated in Modern?Legal Ethics (1986):"

Does that verdict apply to medical profession too ??

 NFA



On 4/9/08, dukeb60 at aol.com <dukeb60 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> ?? It has been fairly quiet on the forum so I'll post this recent response
> from our State Supreme Court to induce some reaction.? As you know, I am a
> lawyer although I have never practiced law but do have a little more
> background than the average person and did pass the bar.? I recently had a
> lawyer handle a case for me in which he performed very poorly and what I
> considered to be in a frankly negligent manner by not representing my
> interests and failing to even read some rather pertinent legal materials.?
> As a result, I filed a complaint with the Counsel for Discipline of our
> State Supreme court to review his handling of the case.? The response
> startled even me not so much in the conclusion but the rational for the
> same, which I will share.? The respondent wrote,
>
> "Isolated instances of ordinary negligence or errors of judgement do not
> rise to the level of a disciplinary violation and are not sufficient to
> warrant disciplinary action.?
> ?
> ??As stated in Modern?Legal Ethics (1986):
> ???
> ????????? To date, the enforcement of competence standards has been
> generally limited to relatively exotic, blatant, or repeated cases of lawyer
> bungling.? Lawyers who make some showing of effort, and who do nothing other
> than perform badly, rarely appear in the appellate reports in discipline
> cases.? The lawyers who are disciplined for? incompetence have usually
> aggravated their situation.? For example, several cases involve lawyers who,
> after their incompetent work, concocted elaborate schemes or lies to decieve
> a client whose case was mishandled.
>
> ?? ... For the above reasons I have concluded, pursuant to Rule of
> Discipline 9(C), that your allegations against Attorney "X" do not warrant
> further inquiry by this office."?
>
> ???? So, this is the standard to which our legal professionals are held in
> their handling of cases.? I am quite certain it is not the same standard to
> which we, as medical professionals, are held in the handling of our cases.?
> It is okay to bungle as long as you don't concoct a scheme to conceal the
> bungling.
> ?
> As much as it is hard to believe that is actually what a representative of
> the Supreme Court wrote it is true.? Caveat emptor, clearly, is the rule in
> law.? While I appreciate the education of a law degree, it is indeed
> embarrassing sometimes to be one.
>
>
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> Ed
> _______________________________________________
> OpenHeart-L mailing list
>
> Send postings to:
> OpenHeart-L at lists.hsforum.com
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, to CHANGE email address, or to view archives:
> http://mmp.cjp.com/mailman/listinfo/openheart-l
>
> All messages transmitted by the OpenHeart-L are subject to the policies
> and
> disclaimers posted at:
> http://www.hsforum.com/listdisclaim
> -----------------------------------------
>