DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, DC ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the District of Columbia

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Professional's Name or Firm]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Services: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s)]
Type of Professional: [Attorney/CPA/Architect/Engineer]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional Name] during the provision of [legal/accounting/architectural/engineering] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

This claim is governed by District of Columbia common law principles of professional negligence and the D.C. Code.

B. Statute of Limitations

General Professional Malpractice: Under D.C. Code Section 12-301(8), the statute of limitations for actions for professional malpractice is three (3) years from the time the right to maintain the action accrues.

Discovery Rule: The District of Columbia applies the discovery rule. The cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the injury, its cause, and some evidence of wrongdoing. Knight v. Furlow, 553 A.2d 1232 (D.C. 1989).

Continuous Representation Doctrine: For legal malpractice, the limitations period may be tolled during the continuous representation by the attorney on the same matter. Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 A.2d 193 (D.C. 1978).

Design Professionals - Statute of Repose: Under D.C. Code Section 12-310, claims against architects, engineers, and surveyors for defective design or construction must be brought within 10 years after substantial completion.

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent services: [Date(s)]
- Date of discovery: [Date]
- Three-year limitations period expires: [Date]

C. Contributory Negligence - CRITICAL

The District of Columbia is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions that still follows the doctrine of pure contributory negligence. Under this doctrine, if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their injury in any degree, they are completely barred from recovery. Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977).

Our investigation has determined that our client was in no way negligent or contributorily at fault for the damages sustained.

D. Standard of Care Under D.C. Law

Under D.C. law, a professional must exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence which professionals in the same field ordinarily exercise under like circumstances.

Attorney Standard: An attorney must exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of the legal profession. Biomet, Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662 (D.C. 2009).

Accountant Standard: An accountant must exercise the degree of skill and care that a reasonably competent accountant would exercise under similar circumstances.

Architect/Engineer Standard: Design professionals must exercise ordinary skill and competence of members of their profession.

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and breach in professional malpractice cases. Biomet, Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662 (D.C. 2009).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required where the negligence is so obvious that a layperson could evaluate it without expert assistance.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant materials and concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached.

F. Damage Caps

The District of Columbia does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in professional malpractice cases.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to the professional services provided to [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete client files (paper and electronic)
• All drafts and working papers
• Correspondence (including emails, texts, and messages)
• Engagement letters and fee agreements
• Time records and billing statements
• Internal memoranda and notes
• Professional liability insurance policies
• [For Attorneys:] Case files, pleadings, research memoranda
• [For Accountants:] Work papers, tax returns, financial statements
• [For Architects/Engineers:] Drawings, specifications, calculations, project files

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation and sanctions.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Professional Engagement

[Client Name] engaged [Professional Name/Firm] on or about [Date] to provide [type of professional services]:

Scope of Engagement:
- [Describe the scope of professional services]
- [Objectives or goals of the engagement]

Professional Relationship:
- Engagement date: [Date]
- [If applicable:] Termination date: [Date]
- Fee arrangement: [Hourly/Fixed/Contingency]

B. Chronology of Events

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Professional Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the professional(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. ELEMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

Under D.C. law, a plaintiff must establish:

A. Duty (Professional Relationship)

[Professional Name] owed a duty of care to [Client Name] arising from the professional relationship established on [Date].

B. Breach of the Standard of Care

Applicable Standard: [Professional Name] was required to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence which professionals in the same field ordinarily exercise.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Professional] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

Breaches:

Breach 1: [Detailed description]

Breach 2: [Detailed description]

C. Causation

Proximate Cause: But for [Professional Name]'s breach of the standard of care, [Client Name] would not have suffered the damages described herein.

Legal Malpractice - Case Within a Case: [If applicable:] Had [Attorney Name] properly handled the matter, our client would have [obtained a favorable judgment / avoided liability]. Biomet, Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662 (D.C. 2009).

D. Damages

As a direct and proximate result of the malpractice, [Client Name] has suffered the damages set forth below.

V. EXPERT OPINION

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed attorney/CPA/architect/licensed professional engineer] with [number] years of experience. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

1. [Professional Name] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a proximate cause of [Client Name]'s damages; and
3. Had appropriate professional services been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

B. Consequential Damages

C. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of the standard of care and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. INSURANCE INFORMATION REQUEST

Please provide within ten (10) days:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any deductible or self-insured retention amounts

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement letter and correspondence
• Documents evidencing the professional's work
• Documents evidencing damages
• Expert curriculum vitae

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional malpractice that caused significant financial harm to our client. The District of Columbia's contributory negligence doctrine does not apply because our client had no role in causing or contributing to the malpractice.

We are prepared to litigate this matter through trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia if necessary.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
D.C. Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Contributory Negligence: D.C. follows pure contributory negligence - ANY client fault bars recovery entirely. This is a critical defense issue.

• No Certificate of Merit: D.C. does not require a certificate of merit before filing.

• Three-Year Limitations Period: General statute of limitations under D.C. Code Section 12-301(8).

• Discovery Rule Applies: Limitations period runs from discovery of the injury and wrongdoing.

• Continuous Representation Tolling: For legal malpractice, statute may be tolled during continuing representation on the same matter.

• Design Professional Repose: 10-year statute of repose under D.C. Code Section 12-310.

• Expert Testimony Required: Essential for establishing standard of care.

• Case Within a Case: In legal malpractice, must prove the underlying case would have been successful and that a judgment would have been collectible.

This template is specific to District of Columbia law. Always verify current law and consult with qualified D.C. counsel.