Legal Opinion

Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 13, 2001No. Nos. 45837-0-I; 45885-0-I; 45886-8-I; 46085-4-IPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

When a paralegal performs legal services with knowledge that there is no supervising attorney responsible for the case, the paralegal will be held to an attorney’s standard of care. Attorneys have a duty to keep *872their clients informed about material developments in their cases. The trial court found that Deloris Mullen, a paralegal, and Lorinda Noble, an attorney, while employed by a nonlawyer who represented accident victims, breached this duty and caused harm to the plaintiffs when they failed to advise them of the risk involved with allowing a nonlawyer to settle their cases. We affirm the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Bowers v. Transamerica Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  5. King v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1974

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tegman v. Accident & Medical InvestigationsWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Tigman v. Accident & Medical InvestCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  4. Gould v. ClippardDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2006
  5. Bank of America NT & SA v. David W. Hubert, P.C.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API