612-877-5000 | Contact us

Extranet Login

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

Moss & Barnett is recognized as one of the leaders in the area of professional liability litigation. Our practice includes advising professionals on how to avoid claim exposure, how to respond to pre-lawsuit claims, and defense of malpractice claims. Moss & Barnett actively represents clients throughout the Upper Midwest, including:

  • Accountants
  • Attorneys
  • Architects and engineers
  • Insurance agents
  • Real estate professionals

The firm is particularly active in the defense and representation of certified public accountants (CPAs). We have defended accountants and firms throughout the Upper Midwest for the past three decades. We have worked closely with the Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants on tort reform and legislative initiatives, lectured and written about the litigation of CPA malpractice lawsuits, and counseled CPAs throughout the United States on loss prevention and claim avoidance. We have also defended CPAs who have been sued for malpractice and related claims in state and federal courts. Finally, we represent accountants facing disciplinary proceedings before state licensing boards and professional ethics committees at the national and state levels.

Our attorneys have also represented and defended lawyers on legal malpractice claims. On occasion, the firm has represented clients pursuing a professional liability claim against their former attorney.
Related Firm News and Articles
Moss & Barnett Obtains Defense Verdict in Multi-Million Dollar Accounting Negligence Case
(June, 2009)
Tom Shroyer Awarded the Minnesota Society of CPAs' "2007-2008 Friend of the Profession Award"
(December, 2008)
Moss & Barnett Congratulates Its Attorneys Listed in The Best Lawyers in America for 2009
(August 2008)
Responding To Professional Disipline
(May, 2008)
Violations Of Professional Ethics In Malpractice Litigation
(May, 2008)
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Expert Disclosure Law for Protection of CPAs from Frivolous Lawsuits!
(May 31, 2007)
Tom Shroyer Recertified as a Civil Trial Specialist by MSBA
(March, 2007)
A Very Close Call for Minnesota's Statute of Limitations
(October, 2006)
Responding to the Minnesota Board of Accountancy
(August, 2006)

Related

News Headlines


Case Summaries

Professional Malpractice

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

More...

Ethics & Disciplinary

[07/02] In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct
The complaint of judicial misconduct against Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with respect his website is concluded under Rule 20(b)(1)(B) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, as appropriate corrective action has been taken. To the extent the complaint involves the Judge's conduct in the United States v. Isaacs case, that portion is dismissed under Rule 20(b)(1)(A)(i) as neither the Judge's assignment to the Isaacs case nor his decision to recuse himself from it constituted conduct cognizable under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.

More...

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[06/30] Stephens v. Branker
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of Petitioner's petition is affirmed where Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim failed, because he did not demonstrate that the conflict of interest allegedly affecting his counsel adversely affected counsel's trial performance.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

More...

4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 Contact us