Are there any nonprofit lawyers around?

Why don't lawyers sue lawyers for malpractice to the extent that they seem to like suing physicians?

• In a recent answer to a question about doctors reporting doctors for ethical errors, the answerer suggested that physicians don't like to report other physicians (I don't doubt this.)  If television ads for lawyers willing to help you sue a physician are any indication, it would seem that there are many more malpractice suits against doctors than lawyers.  Do you think lawyers encourage malpractice suits against doctors and discourage them against lawyers?  What are the statistics?

• Answer:

  The types of harms and the ability to fix the harm done is so vastly  different when it comes to medical malpractice versus legal malpractice  claims.  It is like comparing apples and oranges. In addition, while I cannot tell you the percentages, I can tell you that while medical malpractice cases are amongst the hardest cases to try, legal malpractice cases are even harder. Proving the Case In a medical malpractice case you need to prove, fundamentally that (a) the doctor violated the medical standard of care and (b) that you suffered damage as a direct result. In a legal malpractice case you have to prove the same things, i.e. (c) the lawyer violated the legal standard of care and (d) you suffered damage as a direct result.  But you ALSO have to prove the underlying claim.  So, if you are claiming that a lawyer messed up your medical malpractice case, you have to prove the medical malpractice case as well as the legal malpractice case.  You essentially have a case within a case.  This is because you have to show that you suffered damage and what that damage is. If the lawyer let the statute of limitations pass and you lost the right to file suit, that is malpractice.  But, if your case had no merit, you didn't suffer any damage, so there would be no basis for a suit.  In addition, you need a legal expert to prove that legal malpractice occurred, just as you need a medical expert to prove that medical malpractice occurred.  All of this makes legal malpractice cases especially expensive and complex.  Legal Malpractice v. Ethics I can also tell you that most of the time, when someone has a complaint about a lawyer, the lawyer didn't actually commit malpractice.  Most of the time, the complaint is about ethics. I.e. the lawyer didn't return my calls (the most common complaint.)  An ethics complaint is not necessarily a malpractice complaint.  Most of the time, when someone calls to complain about malpractice, s/he is normally complaining about an ethical issue.  The person feels s/he was treated badly. Those issues go to the disciplinary board of the state. That board makes a decision whether to punish  the lawyer for his behavior.  Failure to communicate with a client in a timely manner can be an ethics violation, but it is not legal malpractice. Ethics issues are where most lawyers get in to trouble. And ethics punishments are not financial, because they have not lead to financial harm. The exception being if a lawyer steals money. This is both an ethics issue and a crime. In those cases, restitution will generally be ordered so a separate civil suit is not normally necessary. Fee Complaints - Lawyer Not Necessary? Another common complaint surrounding lawyers is their fees. Most states have a fee dispute resolution system to help deal with these problems.  It is generally unnecessary to involve a lawyer in these disputes. As a result, most lawyers will tell a potential client that he should simply provide the evidence he has about the fee to the resolution committee and handle it himself. This saves the person having to hire another lawyer to get back his money from the first one.  Exceptions would be for cases in which a substantial amount of money is involved and therefore it is worth it to hire a lawyer to help you.  Most of these cases, if not resolved through arbitration, are small claims cases. So again, hiring a lawyer to help get back 1500 or 5000 dollars is simply cost prohibitive for most people. Rarity True legal malpractice cases are actually quite rare.  Yes, lawyers make mistakes, but more often than not the mistakes can be  fixed before any permanent damage to the case occurs. As long as the  damage can be fixed, there would be no basis for a malpractice case. Oops, the paralegal sent the complaint to the  wrong court.  Luckily he did it in time to send it to the right court. Problem resolved. Unfortunately, when a doctor makes a mistake, the results are often not fixable. And if  they are, the patient still suffered quite a lot and probably will  never be the same.  Given this, there is a lot more permanent and serious harm occurring from medical mistakes than from legal mistakes. This makes medical malpractice cases more common. Suing Other Lawyers When someone calls me about a potential case, I look for two major things. 1. Was the malpractice egregious If the malpractice wasn't egregious I wouldn't want to sue another  lawyer over it, so yes, that is true. Even more though, I would be unlikely to be successful. If the mistake isn't egregious I am unlikely to be able to prove it was  malpractice. The lawyer would probably explain it away as tactics.  2. Was the damage financially severe. As I said these cases are expensive and they are challenging.  Preparing and trying these cases is time consuming.  If there won't be enough money to cover all of the fees for all of the experts, which will include both the underlying claim experts and the legal malpractice experts, along with a decent amount left for the client, along with a decent amount to cover the time the firm spends on the case, it just isn't worth it for anyone. Conclusion I think that most lawyers are fine with a lawyer who sues in cases of clear malpractice. As long as those suits are not frivolous. Just as medical malpractice cases should not be frivolous. Malpractice doesn't make the profession look good, and we, especially the plaintiff bar, believe that people should be held responsible for their actions. In fact, an ethical lawyer will let a client know he messed up, notify his insurance carrier, and encourage the client to get a lawyer. I know many lawyers who take this approach. I think if there were more cases of permanent and serious damage inflicted on clients' cases by lawyers, you would see more malpractice suits against lawyers. But for the reasons I explained, the cases aren't worth enough to take on, or the problem is really one of ethics and not of actual malpractice.