Legal Malpractice
Professional duties.
Personal consequences.
A commitment
to the truth.
When legal representation is questioned, the answer should begin with evidence, not assumptions.
The LOCD represents clients pursuing legal malpractice claims and lawyers and firms defending them. Cassandra Dawn brings personal attention, rigorous analysis, and trial experience to both.
Understanding the claim
More than an
unfavorable result.
A disappointing outcome deserves an explanation. A malpractice allegation deserves a disciplined examination of what was required, what happened, and whether it caused a loss.
Legal malpractice is a lawyer’s wrongful act or omission that causes injury to a client; a claim may arise from negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract. Christensen & Jensen, ¶¶ 21–24
For a negligence-based claim, the inquiry includes the attorney-client relationship and resulting duty, a breach of that duty, a causal connection to the injury, and actual damages. Utah Supreme Court, ¶ 22
Departure from the professional standard of care
The central question is how an attorney with ordinary skill and capacity should have acted under the same circumstances, which may require specialized knowledge of the practice area and the representation at issue. Kendall, ¶¶ 30–36
Our analysis looks closely at the scope of the engagement, the advice given, the available information, and the decisions made. We distinguish an alleged departure from professional obligations from dissatisfaction with a result, then examine whether the evidence connects that departure to a real loss.
The questions that guide our analysis
01
Duty
What responsibility arose from the attorney-client relationship?
02
Departure
Did the representation fall below the applicable professional standard?
03
Causation
Would the client have benefited absent the conduct at issue?
04
Loss
What actual harm can the evidence establish?
This framework addresses negligence-based claims; contract and fiduciary-duty claims require their own analysis. Christensen & Jensen, ¶¶ 22–26
How concerns can arise
The details of
the representation
matter.
These are illustrative situations, not automatic findings of liability. We investigate the full context before drawing a conclusion.
01Missed Deadlines
For example, an attorney allows a filing deadline to pass, impairing a client’s ability to pursue an otherwise viable claim. Jensen v. Young
We examine the engagement, the deadline, the underlying claim, and what the missed opportunity actually meant for the client.
02Inadequate Investigation or Advice
Consider a matter in which important evidence or a controlling legal issue was overlooked, and the client alleges that the omission changed the result. Our review would examine the information available, the work reasonably called for, and the relationship between the alleged omission and the claimed harm.
03Conflicts & Divided Loyalties
Consider advice given while a lawyer’s interests, or another client’s interests, may have affected the representation. Our review would examine the relevant relationships, disclosures, consent, and any claimed consequence to the client.
An ethical-rule violation is not itself a civil cause of action or a presumption that a legal duty was breached, although it may be evidence of a departure from an applicable standard. Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Scope ¶ 20
04Settlement & Negotiation Errors
Consider a disputed settlement in which the client alleges inadequate advice about material terms, an important release, or the authority to settle. We would examine what was communicated, what was authorized, and whether the alleged error caused a provable loss rather than assuming that dissatisfaction with the agreement establishes malpractice.
05Drafting & Transactional Errors
Consider a contract, business transaction, or estate-planning document that is alleged not to carry out the agreed objectives. We would examine the scope of the lawyer’s responsibility, the drafting and advice at issue, and the financial consequences claimed to follow.
Experience on both sides
We don’t pick a side.
We pick the truth.
A deep understanding of the facts, the parties involved, and the relevant law informs our approach to each dispute. Representing plaintiffs and defendants sharpens that perspective: we examine the strengths, weaknesses, and proof, rather than beginning with a predetermined answer.
For clients pursuing a claim
Accountability, grounded
in evidence.
When a lawyer’s conduct is alleged to have caused harm, we investigate the representation, consult appropriate experts, and evaluate the claimed loss. Our experience includes negotiating successful settlements of legal malpractice claims.
We approach resolution with careful preparation and a clear understanding of what the dispute means to the person or organization involved.
For lawyers & firms defending a claim
A professional reputation
deserves a serious defense.
We examine the duty alleged, the work performed, expert support, causation, and damages. Our experience includes successful defense of legal malpractice claims on summary judgment.
We develop the record and assess opportunities for a well-supported resolution, including a dispositive motion when the facts and law justify it.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its facts, evidence, applicable law, and circumstances.
Expertise that tests the evidence
Respected experts.
Independent analysis.
A stronger understanding.
The right expert does more than offer an opinion. The right expert helps us ask better questions.
Our relationships with highly qualified legal experts are an important part of how we prepare these matters.
Cassandra works with respected professionals whose knowledge fits the practice area and the issues in dispute. We look for relevant experience, sound reasoning, and the ability to explain a complex professional question with precision and clarity.
In Utah, expert testimony is generally required when the alleged malpractice is beyond ordinary understanding, while an obvious error within a layperson’s common knowledge may not require it. Kendall, ¶¶ 17–18, 30–36
Our expert work is directed toward a candid assessment of the standard of care, the conduct at issue, and the claimed consequences. The goal is not an opinion that confirms an assumption; it is an analysis that can withstand scrutiny.
What did the professional duty require?
What does the complete record show?
Did the alleged departure cause the loss?
The statute of limitations
Four years in Utah.
The starting point
matters.
Do not wait for certainty before asking about a deadline. The timeline should be assessed promptly and individually.
Utah legal malpractice claims based on negligence are generally subject to a four-year limitations period, running from accrual of the claim. Utah Code § 78B-2-307 Jensen, ¶¶ 13–15
Accrual turns on the events necessary to complete the claim; for example, a missed filing deadline may start the malpractice clock before the underlying litigation reaches a final judgment. Jensen, ¶¶ 12–15, 19–23
Discovery and tolling rules can affect the analysis, but Utah’s discovery rule is not an automatic promise of four years from the day you recognize a possible mistake. Jensen, ¶¶ 16–22
California is different
Do not assume you have four years.
For many claims arising from an attorney’s professional services, California generally requires filing within one year after actual or constructive discovery of the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the act or omission, whichever occurs first, subject to statutory exceptions and tolling provisions. California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.6
The governing law, the type of claim, and the chronology can change the deadline. Do not use this page to calculate your filing date; contacting the firm does not extend any deadline.
A considered first step
Questions worth asking.
We begin with the record, not a conclusion. A focused first conversation helps identify what deserves closer review.
What does summary judgment mean?
Under Utah Rule 56, a court can resolve a claim or part of a claim without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56
Our defense preparation includes evaluating whether the record and the applicable legal standards support such a motion.
Is identifying a mistake enough?
A negligence-based malpractice claim requires proof of causation and actual damages, not merely proof that an error occurred; the inquiry may include how the underlying matter would have unfolded without the conduct complained of. Christensen & Jensen, ¶¶ 22, 25–26
What should I share first?
Start with the names of the people and firms involved, the type of representation, important dates, and a brief description of the concern. Please do not send confidential files or privileged communications until we have completed a conflict review and given you instructions.
Can you review a claim against me or my firm?
Yes. The LOCD considers both plaintiff and defense engagements, subject to conflicts, fit, and availability. Please identify any response deadline in your first inquiry, and do not assume that we have agreed to act until representation is confirmed.
Request a case review
Start with the facts.
We will consider
the way forward.
Whether you believe professional negligence caused a loss or you are defending the work you performed, tell us briefly what brings you here.
We are deliberately selective so each engagement can receive the attention, preparation, and personal commitment it deserves.
Begin with a brief introduction.
Please send only a general overview, not confidential records or attachments. An inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship, confirm acceptance, or extend a deadline.