What Is The Difference Between Legal Malpractice in Torts?

Legal malpractice typically arises from a violation of the duty owed by attorneys to their clients, whereas tort law addresses civil wrongs that cause harm to individuals. Legal malpractice claims may involve torts such as negligence, breach of contract, or fraud.

Legal malpractice is a specific form of tort that occurs when an attorney fails to perform competently or breaches their fiduciary duty to a client, resulting in harm. The fundamental difference lies in the standard of care required of attorneys compared to the general principles of tort law. Legal malpractice specifically requires a duty to the client, a breach of that duty, and resultant damages, which classifies it as a specialized area within tort law.

In tort law broadly, various civil wrongs can exist, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict liability, which define different relationships and responsibilities between parties outside of the attorney-client framework. Unlike typical tort cases, legal malpractice requires the claimant to demonstrate that the attorney's specific actions fell below the standard of care expected within the legal profession.

For a legal malpractice claim based on negligence, the plaintiff must show that the attorney's conduct departed from what a reasonable attorney would have done in similar circumstances. This involves factors such as the level of skill, knowledge, and diligence that practitioners in that specific field of law are expected to possess. The tort of negligence in general does not require the same specialized standard, thus highlighting this distinction within the legal domain.

Key factors further differentiating legal malpractice from other torts include challenges in proving causation and damages. In legal malpractice, clients must not only show that legal services were incompetent but also that but for the malpractice, the outcome of their case would have been different, which can complicate claims. Thus, while legal malpractice is grounded in tort law principles, it cannot be conflated with general tort claims due to the unique professional obligations involved.

• 1Hoffman v. Board of Education (1978) - Established the burden of proof for showing legal malpractice in relation to a duty of care owed by attorneys.
• 2Gleason v. Sentry Insurance Co. (1999) - Clarified that a client must prove causation in malpractice claims, demonstrating a direct link between the attorney’s actions and alleged damages.
• 3McCoy v. McCoy (2005) - In this case, the court outlined the standard for determining attorney negligence in the context of family law.

• understanding-legal-malpractice-claims
• tort-law-fundamentals
• responsibilities-of-attorneys-in-malpractice