This page is part of a private research subweb.  It is not  intended to offer complete information. 
      
TN Research
 


Guidelines to submit an article for publication on our main site  are here.

Pages in this section
Up
TN Legal Malpractice
............................

 Disclaimer: Information contained in pages and articles on this site  provide general information and are not intended to provide legal advice on any specific legal matter or factual situation. This information is not intended to create or provide a lawyer-client relationship. We do not accept personal clients.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.

These pages are designed solely as "parking places" for notes during research on legal, attorney negligence, insurance, ethics and other matters.
Periodically, we clean off most everything on a research page. This page does not always have entry portals or text regarding our fields of legal malpractice, lawyer ethics, corporate governance, and attorney fee bill disputes. 

Statewide legal standard of care.

Chapman v. Bearfield (Tenn. 2006) 2006 WL 3162923  ruled that there is only one statewide standard of care for attorneys practicing in Tennessee. within the state. In the legal malpractice action, defendant Bearfield argued that the plaintiffs' expert's declaration was inadmissible because the expert did not demonstrate that he had knowledge of the professional standard of care for attorneys practicing in his specific locality, as opposed to the standard of care in Tennessee generally. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected Bearfield's assertion that there was a "locality rule" for the standard of care. Therefore, the plaintiffs' expert's declaration was admissible, and the trial courts order excluding the expert's testimony was erroneous.

The Court  defined the standard of care as being the "ordinary care, skill, and diligence... which is commonly possessed and exercised by attorneys in practice in the jurisdiction." (Emphasis in original.) The Court defined "jurisdiction" as being the entire state of Tennessee, not any particular local venue. It is clear that in Tennesee, "[a]n attorney practicing in Tennessee... must exercise the ordinary care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and practiced by attorneys throughout the state. "

The Court's policy reasons for the adoption of a statewide standard are familiar to those following the demise of the locality rule. Foremost in those reasons:  attorneys in Tennessee had to join the 21st century, where the existence of internet based research tools undercuts "historical transportation and communications arguments favoring local variations in the standard of care."

Attorney Legal Ethics and Seminar Education Site Map

..................