Question

The year 2014 was a nightmare for James Littleton. In January 2014, Littleton was diagnosed with Type 2 (adult onset) diabetes. In June, Littleton's physician expressed concern regarding the lack of circulation in his left leg, and in October, a circulatory specialist recommended that the left leg be amputated to the knee; reluctantly, but resigned to his fate, Littleton agreed.

On November 1, Littleton is admitted to Pinecrest General Hospital for surgery. In what can only be described as a horrible and catastrophic mistake, the surgeon misreads the diagnosis and surgical instructions and amputates Littleton's right leg by mistake. Littleton's left leg is amputated the next day.

Confined to a wheelchair, but supported by the love, care, and concern of his family, Littleton visits the offices of a local Pinecrest law firm, Stephenson, Gordon, and Ratcliff, which is a general partnership. Stephenson and Gordon agree to represent Littleton in the medical malpractice lawsuit and sign a contract of representation with Littleton, agreeing to represent him for the standard one-third contingency fee, plus associated expenses.

The statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions in the state is three years. Because of oversight and neglect (rumor has it that both Stephenson and Gordon have substance abuse problems), the firm fails to file a complaint against the attending surgeon and Pinecrest General Hospital within the three-year period. Even though he lacks legal training, Littleton knows he will be forever barred from bringing a lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital.

Having experienced catastrophic neglect from two professions he once respected, Littleton focuses his energy on bringing Stephenson, Gordon, and Ratcliff to justice. He sues the general partnership, as well as the individual attorneys, Stephenson, Gordon, and Ratcliff, for legal malpractice.

Ratcliff's attorney moves for dismissal of the claim against his client individually, arguing that Ratcliff was not an attorney of record for Littleton and, as a result, should be dismissed personally from the lawsuit.

What is the applicable rule for partnership liability? Will Physician Ratcliff succeed in his motion for dismissal? Why or Why not? Please explain.

Answer 1

In this case, Ratcliff will not succeed in his motion for dismissal because there is a legal agreement between the partners and Littleton. The partnership agreement states that any business act will be borne by the three partners. Though Stephenson and Gordon agreed to represent Littleton, Ratcliff too is equally responsible for any action that Stephenson and Gordon takes. This is because of the partnership agreement. It is a fact that Stephenson and Gordon initially agreed to represent Littleton in court. This indicates that the law firm would be representing Littleton and not Stephenson and Gordon personally. Additionally, Ratcliff cannot claim that he is absolutely ignorant of the decisions of Stephenson and Gordon because he is one of the partners in the law firm. Hence, the court do not have sufficient claims to dismiss Ratcliff from the lawsuit because even he is equally responsible for the partnership liability of the law firm. The applicable rule for partnership liability is that all partners of a partnership firm is responsible for the conduct of the business.

Note- If you like the answer, please provide an up-vote as it would be quite encouraging for me. Thank you.