D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act


District of Columbia

Employment Discrimination

Expert Witness Issues

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Federal Civil Procedure


Jordan Coyne LLP news

Lead Paint Poisoning

Legal Ethics

Legal Malpractice

Liability of Agents and Brokers


Motor Vehicle Accidents

Personal Jurisdiction

Police Civil Liability

School liability


Workers Compensation

Most Recent Entries

Recent Case Notes from Jordan Coyne LLP

D.C. Court of Appeals clarifies the method to assign permanent partial disability awards

Jordan Coyne LLP is pleased to announce that Padraic Keane has been advanced to Partner

In Memoriam - James F. Jordan

Virginia Workers’ Compensation:  Injury After Clocking Out

Monthly Archives

May 2017

February 2017

November 2016

April 2016

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

July 2015

May 2015

April 2015

October 2014

August 2014

February 2014

January 2014

December 2013

August 2013

July 2013

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July 2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

October 2010

August 2010

January 2010

November 2009

September 2009

August 2009

April 2009


RSS 2.0

Legal Malpractice Claim Against Immigration Attorney Is Dismissed
In Baserva v. Remes, et al, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63597 (E.D. Va. 2009), a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff, a non-U.S. citizen, sued his former attorney for damages arising out of the plaintiff's detention by immigration authorities.

Mr. Baserva filed suit in 2008 against his attorney in connection with two separate immigration matters, a 1993 deportation proceeding and a 2005 matter where Baserva was detained by immigration authorities.

Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, the U.S. District Court held that Baserva's malpractice claim for the 1993 representation was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Defendant's representation terminated when he withdrew as counsel in 1993, thereby defeating Baserva's argument that the statute of limitations was tolled due to Defendant's continuous representation.

The Court also dismissed the 2005 fraud count as time barred. Fraud has a two-year statute of limitations in Virginia. The Court then dismissed the 2005 counts for negligence and gross negligence. Even though legal malpractice claims sound in tort, they are actually breach of contract claims.

On the remaining legal malpractice and breach of contract claims, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Defendant breached his duty to Baserva by waiting three-months to file the appropriate forms and motions with immigration authorities. However, Baserva's legal expert failed to opine as to whether Defendant's failure to file a motion to re-open the immigration proceedings proximately caused Baserva's detention, leaving a question as to causation. Baserva argued that expert testimony was not necessary. Defendant asserted that expert testimony was required to prove that filing a motion would have prevented Baserva's detention. Defendant further argued that such testimony was unlikely to establish causation since granting any such motion is discretionary, and Immigration might not have granted the motion even if it had been filed.

Ultimately, the Court held that expert testimony was required to prove causation and granted Baserva's request for leave to supplement his expert report provided that he pays all costs since discovery had closed.

In a subsequent ruling, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the failure to file the motion was a cause of the plaintiff's arrest. In so ruling, the court noted that the defendant did not "cause" the arrest, as the arrest was an independent decision by the immigration authorities; the plaintiff was aware beforehand that he could be subject to arrest; no evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Department of Homeland Security would have joined in the motion, which would have been necessary to resolve the underlying issue; and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the motion, if filed, would have prevented the arrest. As the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the alleged failure of the defendant to file the motion was in fact a cause of the plaintiff?s damages, summary judgment was entered for the defendant.

Posted by Rob Anderson and Padraic Keane on 08/31/2009 at 11:06 PM
Legal MalpracticeVirginiaPermalink