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
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

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

More...

Ethics & Disciplinary

[05/13] Tri-State Fin., LLC v. Lovald
In consolidated bankruptcy proceedings wherein the bankruptcy court denied a motion seeking recusal of the bankruptcy judge, approved a settlement negotiation, denied a motion for hearing on the settlement, and approved an award of attorneys' fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the recusal motion was made untimely; 2) upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement or denying the motion for settlement hearing; and 3) because the fee award was only challenged on the basis of a conflict and not contested as to whether the amount was reasonable, the court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorneys' fees.

More...

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[05/13] Hendrix v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't. of Corrections
Denial of a habeas petition is affirmed where: 1) the mere appearance of a judge's alleged bias was insufficient to violate the Due Process Clause in light of clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court; 2) trial counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating circumstances was reasonable and did not render ineffective assistance; and 3) the government's failure to disclose immaterial information about a witness did not amount to a Brady violation.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

More...

4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 contact@moss-barnett.com