4th DCA: "Crowdsourcing" appellate briefs in million dollar malpractice verdict against Gunster
The level of interest expressed in connection with the million dollar malpractice verdict against Gunster recently upheld by the 4th DCA [click here] is so high, I've decided to post copies of the 200+ pages of appellate briefs filed in that case as follows:
- Initial Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
- Appendix to Initial Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
- Answer Brief of Appellees Initial Brief of Cross-Appellants
- Appendix to Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants
- Reply Brief and Cross-Appeal Answer Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
- Reply Brief of Cross-Appellants
- Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007)
What do you make of the briefs; what could Gunster have done differently?
The 4th DCA's opinion is woefully lacking in the sort of factual detail needed to provide real day-to-day guidance to practitioners or future litigants. To make any sense out what happened here, you need to read the briefs. Rather than attempting to figure out the briefs on my own, I'd like to tap into the collective wisdom of the readers of this blog. After you've read the briefs, please post a comment answering the following question:
QUESTION:
Assuming the 4th DCA correctly decided the case, and everyone was acting in good faith and in the best interest of the client, what could Gunster could have done differently to avoid being sued?
Your comments will hopefully help all of us avoid being the target of the next estate-planning/ probate malpractice claim. If you're a law student, banker, accountant, etc., I'd like to hear from you too. Every Florida attorney who reads this blog will appreciate your thoughts (which can be posted anonymously), and I'm guessing that "crowdsourcing" these appellate briefs will result in collective insights none of us on our own would have ever dreamed of.
