It is hereby declared by the Legislature of the State of Alabama that a crisis threatens the delivery of legal service to the people of Alabama and that the quality of legal services which should be made available to the citizens of this state is in jeopardy. It is the declared intent of this Legislature to insure that quality legal services continue to be available at reasonable costs to the citizens of the State of Alabama. This Legislature finds and declares that the increasing threat of legal actions against legal service providers contributes to an increase in the cost of legal services and places a heavy burden upon those who can least afford such cost and that the threat of such legal actions contributes to the expense of providing legal services to be performed by legal service providers which otherwise would not be considered necessary, and that the spiraling costs and decreasing availability of essential legal services caused by the threat of such litigation constitutes a danger to the welfare of the citizens of this state, and that this article should be given effect immediately to help control the spiraling cost of legal services and to insure the continued availability of vital legal services. In addition, this Legislature finds that legal service providers are experiencing great and increasing difficulties in obtaining professional liability insurance and that there is a great and rapid increase in the cost of professional liability insurance. This Legislature finds that both the availability and the cost of professional liability insurance is in direct consequence to the threat of legal actions against Alabama legal service providers. It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a comprehensive system governing all legal actions against legal service providers. The Legislature finds that in order to protect the rights and welfare of all Alabama citizens and in order to provide for the fair, orderly, and efficient administration of legal actions against legal service providers in the courts of this state, this article provides a complete and unified approach to legal actions against legal service providers and creates a new and single form of action and cause of action exclusively governing the liability of legal service providers known as a legal service liability action and provides for the time in which a legal service liability action may be brought and maintained is required.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-262, p. 406, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
71
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
Line v. Ventura, 38 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2009).
Line v. Ventura, 38 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 7× “Line moved for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiffs’ presentation of the evidence, and he renewed that motion at the close of all the evidence; both motions presented the rationale that the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-570 et…”
Sessions v. Espy, 854 So. 2d 515 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 4× “, where the Sessionses produced substantial evidence of a legal-malpractice action under the Alabama Legal Services Act, Alabama Code 1975 § 6-5-570 et seq. II. The trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for Espy and Espy & Metcalf, P.”
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Jones, Morrison & Womack, P.C., 42 So. 3d 667 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 6× “[4] On May 31, 2002, the Bank filed a third-party complaint against the lawyers, alleging claims under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (`ALSLA'), § 6-5-570 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, and seeking indemnity for any liability that the Bank might have to Greene.”
Ex parte Watters, 212 So. 3d 174 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Gamble, in Gamble’s capacity as administrator of the Estate of Barbara Ruth Findley Long (“Long”), deceased; count one asserts a legal-malpractice claim against Watters under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-570 et seq. (“the ALS-LA”), alleging…”
Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So. 2d 726 (Ala. 2002).
“Van Kleef and the law firm of Bullock & Van Kleef (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Van Kleef defendants").”
Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Brackin later added the *216 Trimmier Law Firm as a defendant, alleging that the law firm had violated the Legal Services Liability Act, § 6-5-570 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, by failing to properly and adequately conduct the investigation at FSCU (count V).”
Tanner v. Ebbole, 88 So. 3d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, the attorney argued that the claims against him were governed by the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (“ALSLA”), Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-570 et seq., and that the award should be limited by § 6-11-21 (b) because, he said, his law practice was a small business.”
Ex Parte Panell, 756 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-570. To remedy this crisis, the Legislature "establish[ed] a comprehensive system governing all legal actions against legal service providers.”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” On October 31, 2002, Coilplus sued Vann and Sirote & Permutt under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, § 6-5-570 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the ALSLA”), alleging negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, breach of a fiduciary duty, and suppression of material facts.”
Ex Parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005).
“The Court described the circumstances of the case as follows: *46 "Jones sued under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA), § 6-5-570 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, alleging that Blanton had breached his duty to comply with the standard of care required of attorneys in this…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.