Malpractice Suits against Local Counsel or Specialists

In Ortiz v. Barrett, the Virginia Supreme Court dealt with the issues of the standard of care and potential liability of a lawyer who is employed as local counsel by another lawyer for the performance of specific legal duties. The Court held that the local counsel has the duty to use reasonable care and skill in performing the requested duties, but that this duty applies only to those legal services specifically required in the contract between the local counsel and the primary attorney. The Court did not place an affirmative duty on the local counsel to warn the primary attorney of possible negligence in the handling of the case at issue. The Ortiz case is examined in detail as to: 1. the majority and dissenting opinions, and 2. its scope. In considering whether an affirmative duty to warn the primary attorney should be imposed on the local counsel, the issues include the authority for, costs of, and benefits of imposing such a duty. The preferable alternative for ensuring that the interests of the client are protected, without the disadvantages of imposing an affirmative duty to advise of possible negligence, is strict enforcement of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule provides that a lawyer should not mishandle any legal matter entrusted to him or her. Strict enforcement of the Code would help eliminate cases where the subcontractor ignores neglect by primary attorneys, without the attendant costs.