Appellate jurisdiction Hawaii, 9th Circuit, Supreme Court to set aside default caused by an attorney's default negligence

By

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION1

ANALYSIS2

CONCLUSION6

BIBLIOGRAPHY8

Introduction

The term negligence can be defined as any act that results in showing of lack of responsibility or failure to carry out official duties to legal malpractice or negligent behavior to serve and defend the cause of the defendant. Negligence on part of the lawyer has been a continuing practice for a long time, and courts have been facing this issue for a long time now.

Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Court mentions that:

“In the event if a plaintiff moves the court on persistent negligence on part of the lawyer, the court reserves the right to relieve the party, who has suffered in the due course, the consequent damage for any other reason that justifies relief. The decision of the Hawaiian court in Lal v. Calif case indicated the general obligation imposed by the attorney to comply with the ethical and moral requirements during the course of the case hearing. The attorney, under the Hawaiian law is obliged to be present and provide due support to the plaintiffs, while taking them into confidence about the information necessary for them, which is in contradiction to the decision taken under the influence of Section 41(b).

Lal claimed that the lawyer created an obstruction in the proceedings of the court due to continued negligence that caused plaintiff's appeal due to lack of evidence on part of the prosecutor. It was stated that the negligence on part of the attorney could be taken as the breach of his responsibility. In Lal v. Calif case, the lawyer was found guilty of deliberately using delayed tactics. His negligent behavior led the court to dismiss the case without hearing. As in Tani's case, Lal's lawyer deceived his client on account of invalid reasons thus denying her the right to get justice for her late husband, who was murdered. Lal's lawyer made a false statement in connection with the state of the case.

In the present case the actions imposed against the attorney is to have filed a claim knowing that it was doomed to failure and without attending the court proceedings during the trial of murder case. The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in Lal v. California case indicated the general obligation imposed by the attorney to comply with the ethical and moral requirements during the course of the case hearing. The attorney, under the Hawaiian law is obliged to be present and provide due support to the plaintiffs, while taking them into confidence about the information necessary for them, which is in contradiction to the decision taken under the influence of Section 41(b), according to which, the attorney can choose one or the other action or to abandon any pretense damages and must therefore, as recorded in the Court.

Analysis

If a lawyer is found guilty of legal malpractice, absence in this case as claimed by Lal as against her lawyer, he should be held responsible for the delays ...