Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- King v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1974
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tegman v. Accident & Medical InvestigationsWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Tigman v. Accident & Medical InvestCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Gould v. ClippardDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2006
- 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.