Factors bearing on adequacy of representation.

- When inadequate representation of counsel is alleged, the critical factual inquiry ordinarily relates to whether the defendant had a defense which was not presented; whether trial counsel consulted sufficiently with the accused, and adequately investigated the facts and the law; and whether the omissions charged to trial counsel resulted from inadequate preparation rather than from unwise choices of trial tactics and strategy. Austin v. Carter, 248 Ga. 775, 285 S.E.2d 542 (1982).

Strategy and tactics are lawyer's exclusive province.

- Decisions on which witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examinations, what jurors to accept or strike, what trial motions should be made, and all other strategies and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with the client. Austin v. Carter, 248 Ga. 775, 285 S.E.2d 542 (1982).

Not ineffective although other lawyers might have conducted different defense.

- Simply because other lawyers might have exercised different judgments and conducted defendant's defense in a different manner does not require a finding that defense counsel's representation of petitioner was so inadequate as to amount to a denial of effective assistance of counsel. Austin v. Carter, 248 Ga. 775, 285 S.E.2d 542 (1982).

Defense counsel not ineffective counsel.

- Courtroom activity of defendant's lead counsel during voir dire examination of the jury, waiver of defendant's motions for preliminary hearing and change of venue, failure to obtain a copy of the autopsy report on the victim, failure to make an opening statement, failure to solicit certain important alleged testimony, and the failure to file any requests to charge, were part of counsel's trial tactics after consultation with defendant, were within the exclusive province of the lawyer, and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Futch v. State, 151 Ga. App. 519, 260 S.E.2d 520 (1979).

When malpractice action accrues.

- Action for attorney malpractice accrues, and statute of limitations begins to run, from date of attorney's breach of duty, that is, from the date of the alleged negligent or unskillful act. Riddle v. Driebe, 153 Ga. App. 276, 265 S.E.2d 92 (1980).

Applicable statute of limitations is four years.

- In Georgia, legal malpractice is based upon the breach of a duty imposed by the attorney-client contract of employment, and, as such, the applicable statute of limitations is four years. Riddle v. Driebe, 153 Ga. App. 276, 265 S.E.2d 92 (1980).

Public reprimand for allowing statute of limitations to run.

- If attorney, by failing adequately to represent client and by failing to inform client of the attorney's intention to withdraw from representation of the client, causes the statute of limitations on the client's claim to run, the appropriate discipline would be a public reprimand. In re Price, 244 Ga. 532, 261 S.E.2d 349 (1979).

Summary judgment for attorney.

- Affidavit by a defendant in a legal malpractice action to the effect that the attorney's representation of plaintiff complied with applicable standards of professional competence, if not contradicted by expert testimony, will authorize summary judgment for the defendant attorney. Thomas v. Carlisle, 179 Ga. App. 315, 346 S.E.2d 79 (1986).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, § 154.

ALR.

- Agreement or understanding between attorney and client to use money for unlawful purposes as affecting their rights inter se, 20 A.L.R. 1476; 26 A.L.R. 98.

Liability of attorney for mistake or error in drafting contract, will, or the like, 43 A.L.R. 932.

Reliance upon advice of counsel as affecting criminal responsibility, 133 A.L.R. 1055.

Propriety and prejudicial effect of counsel's representing defendant in criminal case notwithstanding counsel's representation or former representation of prosecution witness, 27 A.L.R.3d 1431.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit, 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Attorney's negligence in connection with estate, will, or succession matters, 55 A.L.R.3d 977.

Liability of attorney for negligence in connection with investigation or certification of title to real estate, 59 A.L.R.3d 1176.

Reliance on, or rejection of, advice of counsel as factor affecting liability in action against liability insurer for wrongful refusal to settle claim, 63 A.L.R.3d 725.

Power of court to order restitution to wronged client in disciplinary proceeding against attorney, 75 A.L.R.3d 307.

Legal malpractice in settling or failing to settle client's case, 87 A.L.R.3d 168.

Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding confessions and related matters, 7 A.L.R.4th 180.

Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding venue and recusation matters, 7 A.L.R.4th 942.

Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding hypnosis and truth tests, 9 A.L.R.4th 354.

Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding search and seizure issues, 12 A.L.R.4th 318.

Legal malpractice: defendant's right to contribution or indemnity from original tortfeasor, 20 A.L.R.4th 338.

When statute of limitations begins to run upon action against attorney for malpractice, 32 A.L.R.4th 260.

Liability of professional corporation of lawyers, or individual members thereof, for malpractice or other tort of another member, 39 A.L.R.4th 556.

When statute of limitations begins to run upon action against attorney for legal malpractice - deliberate wrongful acts or omissions, 67 A.L.R.5th 587.