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

News Headlines


Case Summaries

Professional Malpractice

[12/08] Creekmore v. Maryview Hospital
Medical malpractice judgment is affirmed where the plaintiff's expert witness is found to be qualified to testify as to the standard of care under state law because he performs the same procedure in the same context at issue.

[11/15] Khodayari v. Mashburn
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's tort complaint against his former counsel in postconviction proceedings, judgment is affirmed where the complaints sounds in legal malpractice such that appellant's failure to show actual innocence of the concerned probation violations and to obtain post-violation exoneration of those violations support the trial court's dismissal.

More...

Ethics & Disciplinary

More...

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[01/12] US v. Lopez-Avila
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendant's motion to dismiss her drug trafficking indictment, judgment is affirmed where a mistrial due to the prosecutor's misconduct in misleading the court during his cross-examination of the defendant does not provide double jeopardy relief to defendant.

[12/22] Blystone v. Horn
In cross-appeals from a judgment of the district court denying defendant habeas relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, but granting him such relief on his death sentence, judgment is affirmed where: 1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, develop, or introduce expert mental health testimony and institutional records in mitigation during the sentencing phase, and that the state court's decision to the contrary was unreasonable; and 2) evidence of prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt phase of trial was not "newly discovered" and therefore defendant was not entitled to a Rule 59(e) motion.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[05/05] In Re: Teligent, Incorporated
In a dispute arising from an action for legal malpractice, judgment of the district court denying motion to lift bankruptcy protective orders and cross-motion for injunctive relief barring defendant from attacking the validity of a settlement agreement on the grounds of waiver is affirmed where: 1) defendant-law firm failed to make the requisite showing to lift orders; and 2) it was not a party in interest with standing such that its failure to contest the validity of settlement agreement constituted waiver.

[04/19] Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
In a dispute alleging professional malpractice arising from the drafting of a deficient partnership agreement by the defendant, summary judgment on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed because placement of actual injury upon the execution of the defective agreement was erroneous where CCP section 340.6 (a)(1), tolled the limitations period until plaintiff could establish a cause of action for legal malpractice.

More...


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