[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. The Defendant attorney was employed by Plaintiff;
2. The Defendant neglected a reasonable duty owed to Plaintiff;
3. The Defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage, which is the amount Plaintiff would have recovered but for the Defendant’s negligence; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damage.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. The Defendant attorney was employed by Plaintiff;
2. The Defendant neglected a reasonable duty owed to Plaintiff;
3. The Defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage, which is the amount Plaintiff would have recovered but for the Defendant’s negligence; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damage.

A criminal defendant in a legal malpractice action must also prove that he was innocent of the crime charged in the underlying proceeding. Schreiber v. Rowe, 814 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 2002).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So.3d 36, 39 (Fla. 2009).


First District: Lane v. Cold, 882 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).


Second District: Savannah Cap., LLC v. Pitisci, Dowell & Markowitz, 313 So. 3d 953, 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Watts v. Goetz, 311 So. 3d 253, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).


Third District: Mikhaylov v. Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, 346 So. 3d 224, 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); FBK Associates v. TEW Cardenas, LLP, 280 So.3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), reh’g denied (Oct. 8, 2019); Weisser v. Dolan, 253 So.3d 49, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).


Fourth District: Murphy v.  Pankauski, 2023 WL 2170706, *2 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2023); Washington v. Yates, 2022 WL 1397663, *1 (Fla. 4th DCA May, 4, 2022); JBJ Inv. of S. Fla., Inc. v. S. Title Grp., Inc., 251 So.3d 173, 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Miller v. Finizio & Finizio, P.A., 226 So.3d 979, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).


Fifth District: Baum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 351 So. 3d 185, 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); E.P. v. Hogreve, 259 So. 3d 1007, 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Dingle v. Dellinger, 134 So.3d 484, 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Moskovits v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2022 WL 17259158, *3 (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022); Redus Fla. Com., LLC v. C. Station Retail Ctr., LLC, 777 F.3d 1187, 1197 (11th Cir. 2014); In re Witko, 374 F.3d 1040, 1044 (11th Cir. 2004).


Southern District: Oasis Capital, LLC v. Nason, No. 22-81913-CIV, 2025 WL 385550, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2025); Azumi LLC v. Lott & Fischer, PL, 2022 WL 17977188, *5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2022); Pierson v. Rogow, No. 15-61312-CIV, 2019 WL 1112293, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2019); Mattera v. Nusbaum, No. 17-22406-CIV, 2019 WL 1116192, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2019).

Middle District: Harris Hunt & Derr v. Taylor, 2022 WL 3155135, *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2022); Peers v. Brown, 2021 WL 4173857, *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2021); Hastings v. Viacava, No. 218CV485FTM38MRM, 2019 WL 4751751, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2019), amended on denial of reconsideration, No. 218CV485FTM38MRM, 2020 WL 108896 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2020); Hastings v. Smith, No. 2:19-CV-32-FTM-29MRM, 2019 WL 3867492, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2019).

Northern District: Allen v. Lyons & Farrar P.A., 2022 WL 11625752, *3 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2022); Martin v. Sheehan, No. 4:14CV380-RH/CAS, 2016 WL 775914, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2016); Mitchell v. Smith, No. 3:09CV172-MCR/EMT, 2011 WL 13315134, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2011)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Legal Malpractice

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11, (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (two years). Generally, “a cause of action for legal malpractice does not accrue until the underlying proceeding has been completed on appellate review because, until that time, one cannot determine if there was any actionable error by the attorney.” Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1990).

(3) A client’s abandonment of the pursuit of the underlying action may bar his legal malpractice claim. Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Sikes, 590 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

(4) A criminal defendant who fails in attacking his conviction because of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by collateral estoppel from subsequently bringing a legal malpractice claim against his lawyer. Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 214 (Fla. 1989).

(5) Plaintiff is neither in privity with the Defendant attorney nor an intended third-party beneficiary of Defendant’s relationship with the client. Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, et al, 612 So.2d 1378, 1379-1380 (Fla. 1993); Noyes v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 3 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1362 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

(6) Excessive fees cannot support a legal malpractice claim. See Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So.2d 921, 923-924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

(7) Convicted criminal defendant cannot maintain legal malpractice action unless appellate or post-conviction relief is obtained. Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1999) and the defendant proves his innocence. Rowe v. Schreiber, 725 So.2d 1245, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

(8) Standing in a legal malpractice action arising from a will contest is limited to those who can establish that ‘the testator’s intent as expressed in the will is frustrated by the negligence of the testator’s attorney.’ Babcock v. Malone, 760 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

(9) Insurers have standing to maintain a legal malpractice action against counsel hired to represent its insured where the insurer is contractually subrogated to the insured’s rights under the insurance policy. Arch Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, 318 So.3d 1249, 1253 (Fla. 2021).

(10) Florida courts generally require expert testimony to establish a lawyer’s neglect of duty in a claim for legal. This is because the standard of care that an attorney owes their client is beyond the understanding of the average lay juror. However, no expert testimony is needed to establish a lawyer’s neglect of duty when the legal malpractice at issue is obvious it is a matter of common knowledge, such as when the alleged malpractice was an attorney failing to file a notice of appearance or did not file a suit within the statute of limitations period. Itri v. Jones Foster P.A., No. 23-CV-81384, 2024 WL 3949411, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2024)(citing Evans v. McDonald, 313 Fed. Appx. 256, 258 (11th Cir. 2009); Nogara v. Lynn Law Office, P.C., No. 23-14135, 2024 WL 4459043 (11th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)); Ins. Co. of the W. v. Island Dream Homes, Inc., 679 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2012)(explaining expert testimony is needed when subject matter is beyond average juror understanding); Galloway v. Law Offices of Merkle, Bright & Sullivan, P.A., 596 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

[/MM_Access_Decision]