Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

When Can an “Opinion” Become a Defamatory Statement?

Author By Todd McMurtryPosted on

Defamation is publishing a false statement that causes harm to another person’s or organization’s reputation. A defamation lawsuit can be brought only if the statement is an assertion of fact, not an opinion. Certainly, statements of opinion can tarnish reputations, but in the United States, opinions are protected by the constitutional right of free speech. However, sometimes a statement that purports to be an opinion is capable of being construed by an audience to have a factual basis. If so, and if the statement is false, it can amount to defamation.

One of the most problematic situations in defamation cases is when a statement mixes opinion and fact. A simple statement of opinion is based on underlying facts that have been established. But a mixed statement intertwines opinions with undisclosed or implied facts — or in recent parlance, “alternative facts.”

To resolve the fact/opinion dilemma, courts use a multi-factor test, analyzing the following:

  • Precision of wording — Courts evaluate whether the language used implies an assertion of fact. If the language is loose, figurative or exaggerated, it may lean toward being an opinion. On the other hand, if the statement contains specific details, it might be treated as an assertion of fact.
  • Verifiability — Factual statements are typically capable of being proven true or false through external sources. Opinions, by contrast, convey the speaker’s own sense of morality, propriety or other personal standards.
  • General context — Courts consider how and where the statement was made, taking into account the medium and its audience. Statements made in an editorial, commentary or opinion piece may be more likely to be considered as expressions of opinion, while statements presented as news reports are typically treated as assertions of fact.
  • Broader context — This level of analysis seeks to ascertain the credibility that might be accorded to the statement by any reasonable reader.

The fact/opinion analysis is especially difficult when it comes to statements made on the internet. Fact and opinion are routinely mixed in postings on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Tik-Tok and discussion forums like Reddit, Quora and Digg. These online apps serve as news aggregators, and there is little or no effort by their hosts to control content. Posters often express opinions while linking to sources of uncertain veracity, thereby potentially spreading misinformation.

Despite the challenges posed in evaluating statements made on those new forms of media, the opinion defense is still a force to be reckoned with in defamation cases. Nevertheless, it is not bullet-proof. An experienced defamation attorney can demonstrate how statements alleged to be opinions might contain or imply untrue statements of fact for which you may be entitled to recover damages.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

Butler County issues its property tax revaluation report

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Nancy Nix, the Butler County, Ohio Auditor, has released her summary of the outcome of the property tax revaluations for 2023 (released with the 2024 tax bills).  The report is linked here.

Some report highlights:

  • She explains that eight of the school districts are “below the 20-mil floor,” meaning that there is no tax relief in those school districts due to the “reduction factor” that otherwise automatically rolls back taxes in Ohio as valuations increase.  Those school districts are: Edgewood, Hamilton, Madison, Middletown, Monroe, New Miami, Ross, and Talawanda.
  • The median increase in valuations in Butler County was a whopping 37%.
  • The resulting net tax increases by district are enumerated (but not the valuation jumps alone) and range from a high of 28.41% in parts of the Talawanda school district and as low as 4.61% in parts of the Lakota School District.

This “tax year” is one for the record books.

 

 

Unlawful Discrimination Faced by Working Mothers

Author By Samantha B. IsaacsPosted on

One of the hardest struggles faced by parents today is finding the perfect balance between working and raising children.  Over the last century, women have entered the workforce at record breaking rates. As a result, the rapid engagement of mothers in the labor force has not only contributed to the country’s efficiency and economic growth but has also presented new challenges for employers and working women.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex. This includes protection against sex-based discrimination for workers with caregiving responsibilities, such as working mothers. Despite a progressive shift in the workforce, women are still impacted by discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect working mothers.

Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on parental or caregiver status. As a result, an employer does not violate Title VII if it treats working mothers and working fathers differently than childless workers. However, an employer will be found to have violated Title VII if working mothers are subjected to disparate treatment that working fathers are not.

Although women typically assume a majority of the parental responsibilities in most families, Title VII does not allow employers to operate on the belief that a female worker is less dependable than a male employee.  Unfortunately, working mothers are often forced to combat negative stereotypes as some employers hold outdated beliefs that caregiving mothers are unable to demonstrate the necessary devotion to their jobs and adequately care for their children. Often, women are not hired or are denied promotions because it is believed that mothers, particularly of young children, would neglect their jobs in favor of their presumed childcare responsibilities. As a result, discrimination against working mothers can take the form of women not being hired, biased treatment in the workplace, a lack of training opportunities, unequal pay, the denial of promotions or interviews, or being recommended for lower salaried positions.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), relevant evidence in charges alleging disparate treatment of female caregivers may include:

  • Whether a potential employer asked female applicants, but not male applicants, if they were marred, had young children, or about their childcare arrangements;
  • Whether stereotypical comments were made about working mothers or pregnant employees;
  • Whether an employer assigned a working or pregnant mother to a less prestigious or lower paid position;
  • Whether there were changes in an employer’s assessment of a female employee’s performance after it was discovered that she had children or was expecting;
  • Whether statistical evidence displayed clear disparate treatment against pregnant employees or working mothers.

Despite the legal protections afforded to women under Title VII, sex discrimination persists. Discrimination against working mothers is both unethical and illegal.  Therefore, it is important for women who believe they have been subjected to sex discrimination to be aware of their rights and seek legal assistance if necessary. It is also important for employers to be aware of the implicit biases that can lead to discriminatory employment decisions.

Employers and employees should consult experienced legal counsel to be fully advised of their rights and obligations under the law. If you or a close friend or family member needs assistance in this area, consult the Employment Team at the Finney Law Firm.

Hamilton County Auditor reports on final outcome of property revaluations

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

On the home page of the web site of Hamilton County Auditor Brigid Kelly, she has a blog.  In today’s entry on that blog, is her final rundown of valuation increases in each neighborhood of Cincinnati and each other city, village and township in Hamilton County.  It also shows the net tax increase after the state statutory rollbacks are included.

That accounting is here.  For homeowners and real estate professionals, it is enlightening.  Here are some highlights:

  • The Cincinnati neighborhood with the greatest valuation increase is East Westwood at 84.12%.
  • The Cincinnati neighborhood with the smallest valuation increase is the Central Business District at 6.55% (the residential neighborhoods with the smallest increase are English Woods and Fay Apartments).
  • The overall increase throughout the City of Cincinnati is 26.65%.
  • In Hamilton County, the political subdivision with the greatest increase is Lincoln Heights at 69.23%.
  • In Hamilton County, the political subdivision with the smallest increase is Mariemont at 12.6%.
  • The overall increase throughout Hamilton County is 28.35%.

She also shares the impact of the Ohio property tax rollback, that automatically rolls back rates as valuations climb.

  • Inside the City of Cincinnati, while values climbed 26.65%, taxes levied increased “only” 16.05%, meaning the rate rolled back a net 10.6%.
  • In Hamilton County, the values jumped 28.35%, but taxes hiked only 11.74%, meaning the average rate rollback was 16.61%.

Great reading.  Enjoy!

If you need help with an Ohio or Kentucky property valuation challenge, or to learn more about the process, contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) or Jessica Gibson (513.943.5677).

Random thoughts on the Ohio tax valuation process

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Now that new Auditor’s valuations are out in Hamilton, Butler, Clermont and Montgomery counties (as well as another 20-25 counties throughout Ohio), our firm is experiencing a record number of calls and emails on property tax valuation challenges.  We also have taught four seminars on the topic just in the past week to more than 200 participants.  Based upon our experience and questions raised in these seminars, here are some random thoughts, hopefully providing some wisdom on the topic:

  1. Most — if not all — of our calls and emails start with this line: “I am calling [writing] because the Auditor raised my valuation by xx% from last year.”  OK, that’s interesting and certainly may seem extreme, but (a) it is utterly the wrong starting point and (b) it is completely irrelevant to our analysis and that conducted by the Board of Revision.
  2. The reason this is entirely irrelevant is that (a) a property owner in 2024 (for their 2023 valuation) is entitled to have his property valued at fair market value as of January 1, 2023.  Fair market value is defined as “what a reasonable buyer would pay a reasonable seller, neither party being under undue duress or motivation.”  This is the same valuation formula in which buyers, sellers, lenders, Realtors and appraisers typically engage.  You are not entitled to a lower number because it was lower last year and (b) thus, comparing a newer (and possibly proper) valuation to an earlier incorrect valuation places the analysis in the wrong framework.  The question is not to compare to last year’s valuation.  Rather, the question is: Does your current valuation reflect the value of the property as of January 1, 2023 (the valuation date in question for challenges this year)?
  3. Property owners, including homeowners, are frequently lulled into a belief that they have a statutory right to a lower valuation than “fair market value” — that the Auditor or Board of Revision somehow look at valuation differently than those transactional parties.  This simply is not so.  So, getting the first tax bill at full fair market value can be a jolt.
  4. To my surprise, I received an email last year from a friend and former client who lives in Western Hills: “How could the Auditor think property values have increased 30% over the past three years?”  My response: “Maybe because the nation is experiencing an unprecedented housing boom and Cincinnati/Hamilton County are ground zero of the boom.”  His response: “I had no idea.”  My response: “Do you live under a mossy rock?  It’s been in the newspaper three times per week for the past three years.”  You really do need to be out of touch not to understand the aggressive housing market that has existed some the pandemic began.
  5. The previous blog entries I wrote indicating that tax rates would roll back nearly the same percentage as the average valuation increases turns out not to be accurate.  The rate rollback certainly is there, but it is smaller than I expected and it varies by property categories (commercial, agricultural and residential) and by taxing district — school district and city, village, and township.  Our quick analysis, for example, is that in the City of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Public Schools (the largest taxing district in southwest Ohio) valuation went up 26.65% and the rate rollback was slightly more than 10%, yielding an overall average tax hike of 16.05%.
  6. For many property owners, we are recommending that they not challenge their valuation.  Despite the sticker shock of all of this, most residential properties and certain commercial properties (such as apartment buildings and industrial/warehouse buildings) have in fact soared in value.  Remember, the Board of Revision can INCREASE a valuation as well as provide a REDUCTION, so be careful about asking them to take a close look at your valuation.
  7. This is so also because frequently, the cost of the proceeding (maybe $2,500 for a residential property and $10,000 for a commercial property) exceeds the available savings.  We recommend paying a small sum to an appraiser to get a preliminary valuation before deciding if you want to proceed further, comparing the 3-year savings (a “win” is guaranteed by law to last at least three years) to the out-of-pocket costs.
  8. Unless a recent sale is involved, we generally recommend against proceeding without an appraisal.  For recently arm’s length sales, the sale price is the proper valuation.
  9. When reacting to your new tax valuation, remember that this is a cumulative increase since the last revaluation three years ago.  If we had an average of 8.0% property valuation growth during those three years, the compounded valuation hike would be 25%, and 10% per year would be a 33% bump.  So, (to that fellow who lives under a mossy rick in Western Hills) it’s not hard to see how Auditors in southwest Ohio are seeing average increases of 30% to 40% over the triennial.

If you need help with an Ohio or Kentucky property valuation challenge, or to learn more about the process, contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) or Jessica Gibson (513.943.5677).

Maintaining a Positive and Productive Workplace in 2024:  Increased Scrutiny of Non-Compete, Non-Disparagement, Confidentiality and Other Employment Agreements

Author By Rebecca L. SimpsonPosted on

Over the past year, we’ve seen an increased focus from federal regulators on limiting the scope of restrictive covenants in employment agreements such as non-compete, non-disclosure, and confidentiality agreements:

  • In January of 2023, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would ban employers from imposing non-competes upon employees in most instances. It is anticipated that the FTC will vote on this proposal in April of this year.
  • In February of 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its McLaren Macomb decision (372 NLRB No. 58 (2023)) finding that offering employees severance agreements with broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
  • In March of 2023, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a Memorandum offering Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the McLaren Macomb Decision which included the following question and answer:

“How does this decision affect other employer communications with employees, such as pre-employment or offer letters?

Based on extant Board law, overly broad provisions in any employer communication to employees that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights would be unlawful if not narrowly tailored to address a special circumstance justifying impingement on workers rights. “

  • In May of 2023, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a Memorandum to its Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers, opining that non-compete provisions in employment agreements violate the NLRA except in limited circumstances. (This memorandum does not currently have the force of law.)
  • In September of 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its Strategic Enforcement Plan, outlining six subject matter priorities, including “Preserving Access to the Legal System,” including a focus on “overly broad waivers, releases, non-disclosure agreements, or non-disparagement Agreements”

What does this mean for Employers/Employees?

These developments evidence an increasing scrutiny of employers’ ability to restrict employees’ activities in these areas.  This means that employers should take a close look at onboarding and severance documents and policies to make sure they are narrowly tailored to specific circumstances and with this new focus in mind.  And it means that employees should carefully review employment documents and attempt to resolve any ambiguities or concerns before they sign the documents and before any issues arise.

Further, given that the FTC’s proposed rulemaking has not been finalized, and NLRB memoranda and EEOC enforcement plans define regulatory focus but are not law, it is anticipated that this area of the law will continue to evolve over time.  Employers and employees should make sure they stay up-to-date on any new developments, and that they consult experienced legal counsel to be fully advised of their rights and obligations under the law.

Protecting the Rights of Nursing Mothers: FLSA Protections for Employees to Pump Breast Milk at Work

Author By Samantha B. IsaacsPosted on

The decision to breastfeed your baby is a personal one, and many mothers choose to provide this valuable nourishment to their infants. However, the commitment to breastfeeding can pose challenges when returning to work. Fortunately, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) includes important protections for those employees who need to express milk in the workplace, ensuring that women can continue to provide for their children without sacrificing their career.

In 2010, Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) was amended to require employers to provide a nursing mother reasonable time to express breast milk after the birth of her child. Under what has become known as the “Break Time for Nursing Mothers” provision, employers are required to provide a reasonable break time to new mothers for one year after the child’s birth.  Importantly, the law stipulates that the space provided for expressing milk must be “shielded from view and free from intrusion” by coworkers and the public. Therefore, a bathroom does not meet the requirements under the FLSA. Instead, a private, non-bathroom space that is clean and safe must be provided for employees to pump during the workday.

While this provision to the FLSA is a vital step towards creating a more supportive and inclusive workplace for women who are committed to both their careers and children, it is important to note the limitations of the law. First, employers with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to these requirements if they can demonstrate that providing the necessary accommodations would create an undue hardship for their business operations. Additionally, an employer is not required to compensate an employee for the break time that is needed to pump. However, an employee must either be “completely relieved from duty” or paid for the break time.

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the PUMP Act into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The law amended the FLSA to extend coverage of the right to express milk at work to nearly all employees covered by the FLSA regardless of whether they are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements, with the exception of certain employees of railroads, airlines, and motor coach carriers. If an employer fails to abide by the law, employees must provide the employer with notice of the violation and ten days to remedy the issue.  If an employer fails to remedy the violation, the employee may be entitled to damages.

Mothers should not have to choose between their professional lives and their role as caregivers. Therefore, if you are a breastfeeding mother and your employer is not providing the necessary accommodations, it is important to know your rights.  Employers and employees should consult experienced legal counsel to be fully advised of their rights and obligations under the law. For assistance in this important area, feel free to consult the Employment Team at the Finney Law Firm.

Maintaining a Positive and Productive Workplace in 2024:  Considerations When Using Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions

Author By Rebecca L. SimpsonPosted on

According to a 2022 study by the Society for Human Resource Management, nearly one in four organizations reported using automation or AI to support HR-related activities.  According to the study, while AI is being used in a myriad of employment decisions, the greatest use by far is in recruiting and hiring.

With this rise in the use of AI in employment decisions, regulators and law makers are turning their attention to ensuring that AI is used in a fair and responsible way that does not violate any laws aimed at protecting the rights of employees.

The EEOC is expanding its focus on AI in 2024.

As was noted in last week’s “Maintaining a Positive and Productive Workplace in 2024” blog post, one of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) focuses announced in its Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2024 to 2028 is the use of AI in recruitment and hiring.  The concern is that the use of AI could intentionally or unintentionally lead to discriminatory practices in recruitment or hiring.  For example, if an AI algorithm was programed to screen out applicants over a certain age, that could constitute intentional discrimination.  Or, even if an algorithm was carefully programmed to avoid any discriminatory screening factors, it still might inadvertently screen out, for example, those with disabilities and therefore have an unlawful, discriminatory disparate impact.

This 2024 focus is a continuation of the EEOC’s scrutiny of and guidance surrounding use of AI in employment decisions.  In 2021, the EEOC launched its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative, aimed at ensuring that the use of AI and other emerging technologies used in hiring and other employment decisions comply with federal civil rights laws.

In May of last year, the EEOC released a technical assistance document, “Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”  This document includes guidance in the form of questions and answers, including:

“3.     Is an employer responsible under Title VII for its use of algorithmic decision-making tools even if the tools are designed or administered by another entity, such as a software vendor?

In many cases, yes. For example, if an employer administers a selection procedure, it may be responsible under Title VII if the procedure discriminates on a basis prohibited by Title VII, even if the test was developed by an outside vendor. …”

Law makers are beginning to propose legislation regarding the use of AI in employment decisions.

In July of 2023, U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) U.S. Senator Bob Casey introduced the No Robot Bosses Act aimed at protecting and empowering workers by preventing employers from relying exclusively on artificial intelligence in making employment decisions. On July 20, 2023 the bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and no further action has been taken on it at this time.

Illinois and New York City have implemented legislation governing the use of AI in employment decisions, and more states and cities are proposing such legislation.  For a comprehensive look at 2023 state legislation proposed on a myriad of topics related to AI see the National Conference of State Legislators’ summary on Artificial Intelligence 2023 Legislation.

What does this mean for the use of AI in employment decisions?

The use of AI saves time and money and is a valuable tool for many companies.  No doubt the new and even more efficient and effective methods of using AI will expand over time and bring great benefits to the workplace.  It is important, however, to consider not only the benefits and efficiencies of using AI, but also the potential pitfalls, how to avoid them, and how to craft fair, unbiased, efficient, and effective AI employment tools.

Some practical advice to companies to ensure that their use of AI promotes a positive, productive, and lawful workplace includes:

  • Carefully select your AI vendor and inquire into the vendor’s knowledge regarding and practices for avoiding discriminatory selections processes.
  • Assess each AI tool to make sure it does not include any discriminatory selection factors.
  • Assess whether the AI selection procedure has an adverse impact on a particular protected group.
  • Continue to assess your AI tools on an ongoing basis.
  • Carefully determine which positions or decisions are appropriate for the use of AI tools and which are not.
  • Do not make employment decisions solely based on AI. Have qualified personnel review the results of the AI process.

As this emerging area of the law develops, it will be important to stay up-to-date on any new laws or regulations applicable to your company that address the use of AI in employment decisions.

Rebecca L. Simpson

Maintaining a Positive and Productive Workplace in 2024

Author By Rebecca L. SimpsonPosted on

Most of us spend a significant amount of time working and interacting with our colleagues, and we strive to make our workplace positive and productive.  As we dive into a new year, it is a good time to assess what we can do to maintain such a workplace.  A good place to start is reviewing policies and practices to make sure they reflect company culture and values and comply with existing and new employment laws and regulations.

Some considerations include:

  • Has your company expanded, potentially subjecting it to additional laws and regulations, or creating practical day-to-day challenges that need to be addressed?
  • When were your company policies and handbook last updated? Have there been changes in the law or in the culture, direction, or challenges of your business since that time?
  • Are your managers and supervisors well trained in your policies and practices and how to foster a work environment that fits with your culture, values, and desire for a positive workplace and with relevant laws and regulations?
  • Have your employees been trained in these matters as well?
  • What laws and regulations have changed that might impact your company?

Employment law considerations for 2024 include:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has released its “Strategic Enforcement Plan” for Fiscal Years 2024 to 2028.  According to the Plan, its purpose “is to focus and coordinate the

agency’s work over a multiple fiscal year (FY) period to have a sustained impact in advancing

equal employment opportunity.” The Plan outlines the following six subject matter priorities:

  1. “Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring,” including, for example, in the use of Artificial Intelligence.
  2. “Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons from Underserved Communities from Employment Discrimination,” including for example, individuals with arrest or conviction records, LGBTQI+ individuals, temporary workers, and older workers.
  3. “Addressing Selected Emerging and Developing Issues,” including, for example, protecting workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
  4. “Advancing Equal Pay for All Workers.”
  5. “Preserving Access to the Legal System,” including, for example, a focus on overly-broad waivers, releases, or non-disclosure or non-disparagement agreements.
  6. “Preventing and Remedying Systemic Harassment.”

According to the EEOC Plan, it will “help guide the EEOC’s work through all of the agency’s activities, including outreach, public education, technical assistance, enforcement, and litigation.”

The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan is a good reminder to make sure your company has up to date policies and procedures in these areas that support and foster a positive and lawful work environment, and on which your managers, supervisors, and employees are well educated.

This is the first of a series of blogs that will address in more detail each of the six subject matters areas listed above – as well as other employment topics – and offer practical advice on maintaining a positive and productive workplace in 2024.

Red Flags That Your Lawyer May Be Committing Malpractice

Author By Todd McMurtryPosted on

Legal malpractice is easy to define but often hard to spot as it occurs. In general, it means a lawyer failed to exercise the accepted professional standard of care for the type of matter being handled, and that this failure caused the client harm. The problem is that malpractice may not be suspected by the client until the case ends unsatisfactorily.

If you’re involved in a legal matter, noticing the signs of possible legal malpractice by your attorney can put you in better position of averting a negative result. Here are some red flags you can be on the alert for:

  • Foot dragging — If your lawyer seems to be delaying any aspect of your case, it could be a sign of lack of industry or preparedness. Some delays are to be expected, but an unexplained or extended lapse of time could risk missing the statute of limitations, which can cripple your case.
  • Missed deadlines — Worse than foot-dragging is failing to serve or file pleadings or other documents on time. The negative results can include court-imposed sanctions or possible case dismissal. You can keep tabs on your lawyer’s compliance with deadlines by demanding to be copied on all pleadings and filings.
  • Failure to communicate — This is perhaps the most telltale sign of a lawyer mishandling a case. Failure to advise you of significant events or issues can be detrimental. If your lawyer is not keeping you updated and/or is not returning calls or answering emails, it may signal negligence.
  • Failure to obtain consent — Your lawyer must seek your input and approval when it comes to taking actions that could significantly affect your case’s outcome. This is another reason for demanding that you be copied on correspondence and court filings.
  • Failure to heed instructions — You entrust your lawyer with overall management of your case, but that does not mean he or she can disregard your wishes. The attorney can advise you that adhering to them might not be beneficial but ultimately must follow your instructions.
  • Conflicts of interest —You should be alert to any actions taken by your lawyer that may indicate a lack of loyalty to you. If your lawyer has failed to disclosed a potential conflict, it may constitute malpractice.
  • Settlement pressure — Although a negotiated settlement can be beneficial, you should be on guard if your lawyer seems unwilling or unable to fully explain why. Urging you to accept a settlement without full disclosure of risks and alternatives is unethical and may be harmful.

There are many other indicators of legal malpractice, such as your lawyer seeming unprepared in court, unclear about the current state of pertinent law or at a disadvantage while arguing or trying your case. Recognizing these signs and promptly consulting with an experienced professional malpractice attorney can protect your rights.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 105