Legal Malpractice Expert Needed in Louisiana

Plaintiff seeks to retain a qualified legal expert to render opinions in a professional negligence (legal malpractice) action arising from Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff in an employment discrimination arbitration proceeding. An expert opinion is required to address: 1. The applicable standard of care for attorneys handling employment discrimination arbitrations in Louisiana. 2. Whether Defendants’ conduct fell below that standard; and 3. Whether the identified breaches were a substantial contributing factor in the adverse arbitration outcome. The matter is presently at the summary judgment stage. Expert testimony is necessary to establish breach and causation. II. Background of Underlying Arbitration Plaintiff retained Defendants to represent her in an employment discrimination claim arising out of conduct occurring at a Baton Rouge office location. The arbitration involved allegations of discriminatory acts witnessed by multiple employees. Plaintiff identified:  At least eighteen (18) agents in the Baton Rouge office as eyewitnesses to discriminatory conduct; and  Two management-level employees, Brent Couvillion and Lonnie Brewer, as material witnesses with direct knowledge of relevant events. The arbitration concluded adversely to Plaintiff. Plaintiff now alleges that Defendants’ professional negligence materially compromised her ability to present her case. 1III. Alleged Breaches of the Standard of Care The following conduct is at issue: A. Failure to Secure and Present Material Witness Testimony 1. Failure to subpoena or depose eighteen identified eyewitnesses. 2. Failure to ensure proper service of subpoenas on Brent Couvillion and Lonnie Brewer. 3. Failure to verify whether material witnesses had been properly served. 4. Failure to contact material witnesses to confirm receipt and compliance. 5. Refusal to accept the arbitrator’s offer to re-issue subpoenas for Brent Couvillion and Lonnie Brewer. 6. Failure to secure any corroborating testimony from the identified pool of available witnesses. 7. Failure to take reasonable steps to compel attendance of management-level witnesses with direct knowledge. The arbitrator heard multiple days of testimony from other witnesses; however, no testimony was presented from Brent Couvillion or Lonnie Brewer, and no corroborating testimony was presented from the identified agents. B. Failure to Properly Pursue Negative Inference Relief Defendants sought a negative inference but allegedly failed to research or properly establish the foundational elements required for such relief. The arbitrator denied the request. At issue is whether reasonably prudent arbitration counsel would have:  Conducted adequate research regarding evidentiary requirements.  Properly laid the necessary factual predicate; and  Preserved the issue for review. C. Failure of Communication and Diligence Plaintiff alleges:  She was led to believe subpoenas had been properly served when they had not.  Defendants failed to inform her of service deficiencies.  Defendants did not adequately address the employer’s refusal to accept subpoenas for key management witnesses.  Defendants failed to discuss any risk with negative inference but instead, told the plaintiff that it was a win-win. IV. Issues for Expert Opinion The retained expert will be asked to provide opinions on the following: 21. The standard of care applicable to attorneys handling employment discrimination arbitration proceedings in Louisiana. 2. Whether the failure to ensure service of subpoenas on material witnesses falls below that standard. 3. Whether declining an arbitrator’s offer to re-issue subpoenas for material witnesses who failed to appear in court to testify, who the attorneys considered material and direct witnesses constitutes a deviation from reasonable professional conduct. 4. Whether failing to secure subpoenas for corroborating eyewitness testimony from an identified pool of eighteen (18) witnesses meets professional norms. 5. Whether their handling of the negative inference request, i.e seeking a negative inference but failing to research or properly establish the required elements, which led to a denial from the arbitration complied with the standard of care. 6. Whether the cumulative failures described above materially prejudiced Plaintiff’s case and deprived her of a substantial chance of success in the arbitration. The arbitration was deprived of critical material evidence to consider in the proceedings before ruling. The expert will not be asked to guarantee that Plaintiff would have prevailed, but rather whether the alleged negligence materially affected the presentation and strength of the case. V. Materials for Review The expert will be provided with:  The arbitration record.  Relevant correspondence and internal communications.  Subpoena records and service documentation.  Post-hearing briefs.  The arbitrator’s decision.  Pleadings and briefing in the malpractice action.  Exhibits referenced in the Complaint and Opposition materials. Additional materials will be provided as necessary. VI. Qualifications Sought The ideal expert should possess:  Active or prior licensure in Louisiana.  Substantial experience in employment discrimination litigation.  Experience handling arbitration proceedings (AAA or comparable forums).  Familiarity with subpoena practice and evidentiary standards in arbitration.  Prior expert testimony experience preferred but not required VII. Deliverables The expert will be asked to provide: 31. A written expert report compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. 2. Opinions stated to a reasonable degree of professional certainty VIII. Confidentiality This memorandum and all materials provided are confidential and prepared for purposes of potential expert retention in pending litigation.

Projektin tunnus (ID): 40268872