Alternative to Legal Malpractice Lawsuits: Get rid of bad Oregon Attorneys BEFORE they hurt people.

June 24, 2011

I tell my litigation clients, "I HOPE the attorney for the other side is a really good attorney." That's because a good attorney will know the law, understand the how the facts fit in, and properly counsel their client on the risks and benefits of proceeding with each phase of the litigation. Dumb and / or inexperienced lawyers only increase the cost of litigation, which only benefits the attorneys.

I'm involved in a case now that should never have gone to court. The opposing party should have paid my client. We asked for the correct amount, which was far less then the costs of litigation. We had to sue. A good attorney would have told the defendant to pay the amount due on time. Maybe he did, and the client ignored him. I don't know.

The amount was small. In Oregon, a case under $50,000 must first go through an arbitration process. We won at arbitration. Now, the other side owes us attorney fees far in excess of the amount the defendant owes my client. A good attorney would have told his client to pay the award, and maybe he did. But the defendant appealed, which will only cost the defendant more money for attorney fees.

The Oregon State Bar regulates lawyers. If an attorney takes Ten Cents from a client trust account, he or she is in big trouble. If an attorney costs someone several thousands of dollars because of bad advice. . . ., then it's usually up to the client sue for legal malpractice.

I think the Oregon State Bar should have a program for identifying substandard lawyers. Once identified, the attorneys should get additional training. If their substandard practice continues, we should yank their licenses to practice law.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234