This site is not supported on Internet Explorer. Please view this site on the latest version of Chrome, Safari, Firefox or Edge.

Update your browser

Professional Liability & Ethics

Professional Liability & Ethics

For more than 20 years, LPHS has represented law firms and lawyers in various professional liability and ethics matters. The practice revolves around both litigated matters – malpractice suits and disciplinary cases – and counseling law firm management and individual lawyers in avoiding and reacting to ethics and professional responsibility matters. As active trial attorneys with a range of experience in professional liability and ethics matters, many of our attorneys have a unique depth and breadth of knowledge concerning the laws and regulations that govern lawyers.

LPHS’s representation of law firms ranges from having represented many of the largest law firms in the nation to representing smaller firms and solo practitioners.

The firm’s professional liability practice includes malpractice defense, general ethics consultation and advice, special counsel regarding disqualification and sanctions motions, expert testimony, and appeals. We offer experienced, aggressive and discreet representation in professional liability cases, and fully appreciate the heavy responsibility of defending the reputations and livelihoods of our professional colleagues.

  • Representing an AMLAW 100 firm in a professional malpractice arbitration involving a purported failure to meet an appellate filing deadline. We obtained an appellate reversal of the trial court’s denial of our client’s motion to compel arbitration. Then after extensive briefing on case-within-a-case causation issues, the parties entered a cost of defense settlement on the eve of arbitration.
  • Representing an AMLAW 100 firm against professional malpractice claims relating to the firm’s representation of a client in an IRS investigation. The trial court dismissed the case in full after LPHS filed an early motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations and anti-fracturing grounds, and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed in full.
  • Representing an AMLAW 100 firm and two partners in connection with claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee. The firm negotiated a pre-suit disclosure process and eventually entered a favorable settlement prior to the public filing of suit.
  • Representing a Dallas firm in connection with a contingent fee dispute, and tort claims brought for and against that firm in connection with the underlying contingent fee dispute.