Cases involving professional malpractice claims in Jacksonville will often refer to examples of alleged conflicts of interest. The reason why this principle is so often cited is due to the duty that a professional practitioner owes to his or her client. In the case of an attorney, a client expects that attorney to do all that is reasonably within his or her capacity to secure a favorable outcome to said client's case. If that same attorney is also involved with another party to the same matter (whose objectives might seem to be in conflict with the client's), then one might question how his or her position can be viewed as any but compromised.
Such is the claim being made by a group of residents from a community in Pennsylvania. They are attempting to qualify a class to bring a lawsuit against the law firm that represented them in a case against a local wood treatment plant. Their claim is that the settlement that they received from a tort claim against the plant should have been significantly higher, yet the firm's mismanagement of the case costs them hundreds of millions of dollars. At the heart of their complaint is a conflict of interest accusation. They claim such a conflict occurred when the firm chose to represent a creditor involved in the plant's subsequent bankruptcy case. The firm, for its part, denies any allegations of mismanagement or malpractice.
Legal representation may not come with a guarantee of satisfaction, which clients might understand (and even accept) if they believe their attorneys did all they could in representing them. Those who feel as though their representation failed in its duty to them, however, may be justified in seeking compensation. Such claims may be bolstered if those pursuing them have experienced attorneys to turn to.