As you probably know, jurisdictions are divided on whether a convicted criminal defendant has to argue and prove actual innocence as a requirement to maintain a legal malpractice action against his or her former lawyer. In the past few years, I have reported that Utah, Iowa, (also here), Indiana, Idaho, and Kansas (here and here) have abandoned the requirement of showing actual innocence.
I am writing about this today because I just saw that the most recent issue of the ABA Journal has a short article on the debate on this issue.
You can access the article here. Legal Ethics in Motion has a comment here.
No comments:
Post a Comment