LJN Newsletters

Law firms are a natural breeding ground for developing strong, effective leaders. Most often though, when selecting an attorney to assume leadership responsibilities for their practice group, office or as managing partner, the nod goes to the most financially successful attorney who has established a baseline of trust as a knowledge-based expert with clients. Is it any wonder that when these very successful attorneys who are superb at maintaining client relationships by keeping their nose to the grindstone and practicing law without interference from the firm, often stumble when thrown into leadership roles where expectations dramatically shift to the care and feeding of others within the firm?

For the industry as a whole, the economic performance of law firms in 2004 was quite good. Indeed, given the overall state of the national economy and the dire early predictions of some pundits, the performance of the industry was remarkable. Much of this positive performance was, of course, attributable to the continuing strength of litigation practices as well as, to a lesser extent, bankruptcy and reorganization activity.

Recent rulings you need to know.

The latest news of interest to you and your practice.

Increasingly, expert witnesses' opinions are subject to the scrutiny of the professional organizations to which they belong. This scrutiny can act as a check on their proffered expert testimony. The requirements of admissibility of expert opinion at trial have long been subject to the requirements of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and after admission, the opinions are often second-guessed by an unhappy client in a subsequent lawsuit, as in LLMD of Michigan v. Jackson-Cross Co., 740 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1999). Now we're finding that the further review of these same opinions by the expert's own specialty professional organization is being used increasingly as a new strategy of attack by the expert's unhappy opponents.

The Associated Press has reported that medical students and physicians are now being taught that an open acknowledgment of regret for medical errors, even an apology, may help doctors avoid malpractice lawsuits. In Illinois, malpractice reform legislation includes a concept known as "Sorry Works," recommending that an apology be offered when mistakes are made or untoward results occur. Within the overall context of medical malpractice risk management, a recent evolution in dispute resolution philosophy suggests that direct, forthright communications between physician and patient may reduce the risk of future litigation.

Court rulings across the country are showing that the increased use of genetic testing has substantially expanded physicians' liability for failure to counsel patients about hereditary disorders. In recent years courts in Minnesota, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia have ruled on medical malpractice cases stemming from genetic testing issues. Decisions issued in those courts have tried to carve out rules on when physicians have a duty to relay information gleaned from genetic testing.

Part Two of a Two-Part Article. In last month's newsletter, we looked at the symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the incentives plaintiffs who claim such injuries may have to exaggerate their symptoms. In this month's conclusion, we see how forensic experts test for and detect this type of fraud on defendants and their insurers.