In any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a legal service provider, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the legal service provider breached the applicable standard of care. The applicable standard of care shall be as follows:
(1) The applicable standard of care against the defendant legal service provider shall be such reasonable care and skill and diligence as other similarly situated legal service providers in the same general line of practice in the same general area ordinarily have and exercise in a like case.
(2) However, if the defendant publishes the fact that he or she is certified as a specialist in an area of the law or if the defendant legal service provider solicits business by publicly advertising as a specialist in any area of the law, the standard of care applicable to such legal service provider in a claim for damages resulting from the practice of such a specialty shall be such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other legal service providers practicing as specialist in the same area of the law ordinarily have and exercise in a like case.
(3) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to allow either the solicitation of business by or advertising by a legal services provider in violation of any rule of the Alabama Supreme Court.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-262, p. 406, §11.)
Notes of Decisions
Green v. Ingram, 794 So. 2d 1070 (Ala. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The record contains no evidence controverting that prima facie showing and creating a genuine issue of material fact on the question of negligence.”
Traywick v. Kidd, 142 So. 3d 1189 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “This issue was addressed contrary to Kidd’s position in Ex parte Free, in which our supreme court stated that the plaintiff must “prove that the defendants breached the applicable standard of care (Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-580(1)) as it relates to each cause of action.”
Sanders v. Weaver, 583 So. 2d 1326 (Ala. 1991).
“Section 6-5-580 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "In any action for .”
Borden v. Clement, 261 B.R. 275 (N.D. Ala. 2001).
“§ 6-5-580(1). The specific elements of a legal malpractice claim are: 1) the existence of a duty, 2) breach of the duty, 3) proximate causation of injury by the breach, and 4) damages.”
Guyton v. Hunt, 61 So. 3d 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“1995); see also § 6-5-580, Ala. Code 1975. However, in Valentine v.”
City of Orange Beach v. Scottsdale Ins., 166 F.R.D. 506 (S.D. Ala. 1996).
“The Motion to Amend sought to amend the Third-Party Complaint to include a claim that Stone Granade breached “a duty to Scottsdale Insurance Company to exercise the standard of care set forth in Code of Aabama, § 6-5-580.” Proposed Amended Complaint, p.”
Anderson v. Clark, 775 So. 2d 749 (Ala. 1999).
“The Alabama Legal Services Liability Act also states, at § 6-5-580: "In any action for ... damages .”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-580(1) — 4 cases
Traywick v. Kidd, 142 So. 3d 1189 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
“This issue was addressed contrary to Kidd’s position in Ex parte Free, in which our supreme court stated that the plaintiff must “prove that the defendants breached the applicable standard of care (Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-580(1)) as it relates to each cause of action.”
Borden v. Clement, 261 B.R. 275 (N.D. Ala. 2001).
“§ 6-5-580(1). The specific elements of a legal malpractice claim are: 1) the existence of a duty, 2) breach of the duty, 3) proximate causation of injury by the breach, and 4) damages.”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-580(a) — 1 case
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.