How to Manage Tough-Luck Situations as an Attorney - Tips for Lawyers Dealing with Difficult Cases

Summary

The article “Tough Luck and Sorry 'Bout That” looks at the ever-important concept of legal malpractice within the legal field. Legal malpractice occurs when a legal representative's action or failure to act results in a financial harm to their client. This article provides a candid look at the various types of legal malpractice, the legal implications of such events, and the different types of client-attorney relationships.


Legal malpractice is a serious issue within the legal profession. It occurs when a lawyer or legal representative fails to provide their client with quality representation, or takes action that results in a financial loss for the client. In order to successfully protect clients from potential losses due to legal malpractice, attorneys must properly understand the applicable legal principles associated with the specific case at hand. If a legal representative fails to meet this obligation, it is likely that the client could suffer a financial loss.

Aside from the financial losses associated with legal malpractice, clients may also suffer from emotional distress. This emotional distress can be caused by the attorney's failure to act in the client's best interest. The client may also feel betrayed or taken advantage of when an attorney fails to fulfill their legal obligations. In order to mitigate the risk of emotional distress, attorneys should make sure to foster a trusting, open relationship with their clients.

The article further examines the various types of client-attorney relationships. For instance, there are contractual relationships, where the parties enter into a contract outlining their responsibilities and the scope of the legal representation. There are also non-contractual relationships, where the scope of the representation is not defined by a contract. Regardless of the type of relationship, it is important for both parties to be aware of their legal obligations regarding the matter and to take all applicable measures to ensure that these obligations are met.

Ultimately, legal malpractice is an issue that should not be taken lightly. It can have serious financial and emotional implications for an individual who entrusts an attorney with their case. As such, it is important for attorneys to properly assess all potential legal risks associated with any case, and to foster an open and communicative relationship with their clients. Through taking these steps, attorneys can help ensure that their clients are properly represented and protected from potential financial and emotional losses associated with legal malpractice.
 

What is Tough Luck and Sorry Bout That?

Tough luck and sorry bout that are common phrases that are used to express sympathy to a person who has suffered a misfortune or lack of luck. The phrase is usually accompanied by a gesture of sympathy, such as a hug or a pat on the back. It first appeared in the mid-19th century and has since become a popular way of expressing sympathy.
 

History of Tough Luck and Sorry Bout That

The phrase "tough luck and sorry bout that' has been around since the mid-1800s, when it was first popularized by the works of American author, Mark Twain. It is thought that Twain used the phrase to express his feelings of sympathy for those who were facing difficult times. He used the phrase in his writings to describe the feeling of disappointment that comes with having bad luck and misfortune.
 

How is Tough Luck and Sorry Bout That Used in the Legal World?

Tough luck and sorry bout that is a popular phrase used by attorneys in the legal world. It is often used to sympathize with clients or opposing counsel who have experienced an unfortunate outcome in a legal dispute. The phrase is often seen as a way to express sympathy while still maintaining a degree of professional respect.
 

The Impact of Tough Luck and Sorry Bout That

The use of the phrase "tough luck and sorry bout that' has had a far-reaching impact in the legal world. It is often used as a way to bring a sense of comfort to those who have experienced difficulty in a legal dispute. It also serves as a reminder to attorneys and others in the legal profession to remain compassionate and understanding of their clients, even when dealing with difficult cases.
 

The Importance of Tough Luck and Sorry Bout That in Legal Disputes

The phrase "tough luck and sorry bout that' is a reminder to attorneys and legal professionals to be compassionate when dealing with difficult cases. Lawyers should strive to express sympathy and understanding to those who are facing an unfortunate outcome in a legal dispute. By doing so, it shows true compassion and respect for their clients, even in the face of adversity.

As you may already have surmised, the case turns on the "takings clause" of the Constitution, i.e., "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." Here the state destroyed hundreds of trees on private property in King County in an effort to halt a threatened infestation of the citrus longhorned beetle. Six landowners were offered a total of only $200 as compensation for damages they placed at $138,000. They won in a court of appeals, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed: The owners' tough luck, the court held, was just that — tough luck, for which no compensation need be paid.

The facts were never in dispute. The nursery imported maple bonsai stock from Korea. Arborists discovered telltale exit holes marking the beetles' presence. The evidence raised a specter of huge damage to apple and other fruit trees. Gov. Gary Locke proclaimed an emergency. The state department of agriculture saw a "strong likelihood" that the pest might become permanently established if immediate action were not taken.

Pursuant to the governor's order, the department developed an eradication plan that called for removal of all host species trees within a one-eighth-mile radius. The plan, based upon the beetle's flight patterns, affected 51 landowners on 32 acres. Most of the owners settled out of court, but six owners balked. No evidence had been offered of beetles on their property.

The trial court ruled (1) that the beetle constituted an extreme threat to state interests, (2) that the department had acted responsibly, and (3) that destruction of the owners' trees was indeed a compensable taking. The state agreed to pay a stipulated sum if the owners prevailed on appeal, and the chain saws promptly growled.

As it turned out, the owners did not prevail. Washington's Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Chief Judge Mary K. Becker, the panel expressed some sympathy for the complaining owners. "Through no fault of their own, their lovely trees had become a threat to the community." Not only fruit and fir trees had been destroyed, but also rose, azalea and lilac bushes. Even so, destruction of the trees "was necessary to meet an extremely threatening emergency." This was not a compensable taking.

In its opinion the court cited several takings-clause cases in which compensation was not owed. A state case in 2003, for example, involved destruction of a house by police who were seizing evidence of a crime. The owner's damage claim "was not cognizable" under either state or federal constitutions.

In the case at hand, involving potential damage by beetles, there had been no permanent physical occupation. The department had entered upon the owners' property in response to a court-affirmed emergency. State employees "destroyed the host trees, and left." True, the action was an injury to the owners' property, "but it did not reduce it to an irreclaimable desert."

The court cited the state case of Short v. Pierce Company in 1938: Berry farmers on the Puyallup River "were not entitled to government compensation for topsoil that had been stripped from their property, bagged, and used in an emergency flood control operation."

This is "the law of necessity." It permits "the destruction of homes to avoid a conflagration, the throwing overboard of goods in a tempest for the safety of the vessel, and the raising of bulwarks on private property as a defense against a public enemy." A threatened eruption of Mount St. Helens led to a 1982 decision affirming the state's emergency powers. The state could not be required to wait until the volcano actually erupted. "The destruction of ornamental trees in this case is directly analogous to the appropriation of topsoil in Short." In emergencies, the state cannot be burdened by the condition that individual owners must be compensated for pecuniary losses they may sustain "by their not being permitted to inflict injury upon the community."

Chief Justice Becker's opinion began by saying that the beetles "accidentally" escaped. Surely some tort liability must lie somewhere in the midst of all those downed trees and ruined lilacs. Fairness demands fair compensation, but whoever said life is fair?

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.