(a) Evidence of action taken by a legal service provider in an effort to comply with any provision or any official opinion or interpretation of the rules of professional conduct shall be admissible only in defense of a legal service liability action and the same shall be available as a defense to any legal services liability action.
(b) Neither evidence of a charge of a violation of the rules of professional conduct against a legal service provider nor evidence of any action taken in response to such a charge shall be admissible in a legal services liability action and the fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action or otherwise be used in support of recovery in a legal services liability action.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-262, p. 406, §9.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2000–2018 · leading case:
Biles v. Sullivan, 793 So. 2d 708 (Ala. 2000).
Biles v. Sullivan, 793 So. 2d 708 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 2× “This holding was codified, as to all acts and omissions occurring after April 12, 1988, in Alabama Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b): "[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action…”
D.A.R. v. R.E.L., 272 So. 3d 1030 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b) ("[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action .”
Borden v. Clement, 261 B.R. 275 (N.D. Ala. 2001).
“These kinds of claims may not be pursued as separate causes of action. More specifically, violation of the rules of professional conduct does not give rise to an independent cause of action, and it is inadmissible as evidence in the plaintiffs case of legal malpractice.”
Alexander v. DeLong, Caldwell, Novotny & Bridgers, LLC. (In Re Terry Mfg. Co.), 322 B.R. 696 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2005).
· cites it 2× “the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act is not applicable because the legal services at issue were provided in the State of Georgia by a Georgia law firm in litigation filed in Georgia; 4) the Plaintiffs claims are barred by Alabama Code § 6-5-572(2) as the Defendant firm was…”
D.A.R. v. R.E.L., 272 So. 3d 1030 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b) ("[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action .”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-578(b) — 4 cases
Biles v. Sullivan, 793 So. 2d 708 (Ala. 2000).
“This holding was codified, as to all acts and omissions occurring after April 12, 1988, in Alabama Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b): "[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action…”
D.A.R. v. R.E.L., 272 So. 3d 1030 (Ala. 2018).
“" Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b) ("[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action .”
Alexander v. DeLong, Caldwell, Novotny & Bridgers, LLC. (In Re Terry Mfg. Co.), 322 B.R. 696 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2005).
“the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act is not applicable because the legal services at issue were provided in the State of Georgia by a Georgia law firm in litigation filed in Georgia; 4) the Plaintiffs claims are barred by Alabama Code § 6-5-572(2) as the Defendant firm was…”
D.A.R. v. R.E.L., 272 So. 3d 1030 (Ala. 2018).
“" Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-578(b) ("[T]he fact that a legal service provider violated any provision of the rules of professional conduct shall not give rise to an independent cause of action .”
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.