Lead Counsel independently verifies Legal Malpractice attorneys in Swainsboro by conferring with Georgia bar associations and conducting annual reviews to confirm that an attorney practices in their advertised practice areas and possesses a valid bar license for the appropriate jurisdictions.
If you believe your lawyer negligently or recklessly represented you in a legal proceeding that resulted in an unfair or unjust outcome, you may have a valid claim of legal malpractice. A Swainsboro Legal Malpractice Attorney can help you determine whether you have a case, and help you recover for your losses.
All lawyers are required to act diligently, ethically, and with vigor in their representation of clients. Unfortunately, various and often unforeseen circumstances can cause an attorney’s representation to be less than adequate, which can result in actual harm and damages to a client. This is known as committing legal malpractice.
Common types of legal malpractice include missing court filings, failing to communicate, allowing conflicts of interest to persist, failure to know the law or perform research, misuse of client trust accounts, and client abandonment.
No matter what your legal issue may be, it is always best to seek legal help early in the process. An attorney can help secure what is likely to be the best possible outcome for your situation and avoid both unnecessary complications or errors.
A reputable attorney will be very upfront about how he/she will charge you. The three most common fee structures that attorneys use to charge for their services are:
Depending on your specific legal situation, it’s possible that only one type of fee structure is available. For instance, criminal defense attorneys almost always bill by the hour. In a flat fee arrangement, an attorney accepts a one-time payment to help you resolve your issue. With a contingent fee agreement, the client pays little to nothing upfront and the attorney receives a percentage of the money recovered if you win your case.
Personal jurisdiction – Requirement that a particular court have authority over a person, in order to bind that person to the judgment of the court, based on minimum contacts. International Shoe Co v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case outlining the scope of a state court’s reach in personal jurisdiction.