DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF MISSOURI

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

DATE: [Date]

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

[Professional / Firm Name]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Service: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s) and License Type]
Matter/Project: [Description]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional/Firm Name] in [his/her/their] provision of [type of professional services] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. MISSOURI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Professional malpractice claims in Missouri are governed by common law negligence principles. Key precedents include Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1997) and Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1995).

B. Statute of Limitations

Professional Malpractice: Under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 516.120, actions for professional malpractice must be commenced within five (5) years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim.

Discovery Rule: Missouri applies the discovery rule. The cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the harm caused by the defendant's conduct. Powel v. Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. 2006).

Legal Malpractice: The limitations period runs from the date of the damage, which may be determined by applying the "occurrence rule" or "damage rule" depending on the circumstances. Jepson v. Stubbs, 555 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. 1977).

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

C. Comparative Negligence

Missouri follows a pure comparative negligence system under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 537.765. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, but the plaintiff may still recover regardless of the percentage of fault attributed to them.

D. Standard of Care Under Missouri Law

Under Missouri law, a professional must exercise the degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of the profession. Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1997).

Key Case Law:

• Attorneys: Must exercise "that degree of skill and diligence which lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise." Williams v. Preman, 911 S.W.2d 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
• Accountants: Must perform services consistent with GAAP and GAAS standards. Aluma Kraft Mfg. Co. v. Elmer Fox & Co., 493 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
• Engineers/Architects: Must exercise the same degree of care and skill as ordinarily employed by members of the profession. Cori v. Burroughs Mach., Ltd., 10 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is generally required in professional malpractice cases to establish:
1. The applicable standard of care;
2. That the defendant breached that standard; and
3. That the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.

Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1995).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required when the alleged negligence is so obvious that laypeople can determine it without expert guidance.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant documents and has concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached and that such breach proximately caused our client's damages.

F. Damage Caps

Missouri does not impose statutory caps on damages in non-medical professional malpractice cases.

G. Privity and Third-Party Claims

Legal Malpractice: Generally requires an attorney-client relationship. Kurtz v. Heimark, 919 S.W.2d 293 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). Missouri recognizes limited exceptions for intended third-party beneficiaries.

Accountant Malpractice: Third parties may recover under the Restatement approach where the accountant knew the work would be relied upon. Aluma Kraft Mfg. Co. v. Elmer Fox & Co., 493 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

H. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Missouri recognizes breach of fiduciary duty as a separate cause of action. Attorneys and other professionals who owe fiduciary duties may be liable for their breach. Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1997).

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

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

• Complete client file (paper and electronic)
• All correspondence and communications
• Work product, drafts, and notes
• Billing records and time entries
• Engagement letters and contracts
• Emails and electronic communications
• Calendar entries and scheduling records
• Internal memoranda and analysis
• Research materials
• Any recorded statements
• Professional liability insurance policies
• Quality control and review documentation

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under Missouri law. Baldridge v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement and Relationship

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

Nature of Engagement:
- [Description of services to be provided]
- [Scope of representation/engagement]
- [Key objectives]

Fee Arrangement:
- [Description of fee arrangement]
- [Total fees paid: $Amount]

B. Chronology of Negligent Services

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[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. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under Missouri law, [Defendant Professional] was required to exercise the degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of the [profession type] profession.

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

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

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed/certified] [profession] with [number] years of experience in [relevant area]. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

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

V. CAUSATION

A. "But For" Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the damages described herein. This claim satisfies the "but for" test for actual causation.

B. Proximate Causation

The defendant's professional negligence was a proximate cause of our client's damages. The harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.

C. Case-Within-A-Case (If Applicable to Legal Malpractice)

[If legal malpractice:] We are prepared to prove that but for counsel's negligence, the underlying matter would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for our client. Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1997).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's professional negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Damages:
- [Loss 1]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 2]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 3]: $[Amount]

B. Consequential Damages

C. Professional Fees Paid

D. Interest and Incidental Costs

• Prejudgment interest per Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 408.040
• Court costs and filing fees
• Expert witness fees

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of professional standards, the extent of our client's damages, and the strength of liability evidence, 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. Central Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Consent to extend statute of limitations during settlement discussions

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement agreement/retainer
• Correspondence between client and professional
• Work product demonstrating errors
• Documentation of damages
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Chronology of events

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional negligence that caused significant financial harm to our client. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care required of [profession type] in Missouri.

We are prepared to litigate this matter in the Circuit Court of [County] County, Missouri if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MISSOURI PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Five-Year Limitations Period: One of the longer limitations periods for professional malpractice.

• Discovery Rule: Limitations period runs from when plaintiff knew or should have known of the damage.

• Pure Comparative Fault: Plaintiff may recover regardless of percentage of fault (damages reduced proportionally).

• Expert Testimony Required: Expert witness is generally necessary except for obvious negligence.

• No General Damage Caps: No statutory limits on compensatory damages in non-medical professional malpractice.

• Punitive Damages: Available for willful or wanton misconduct.

• Prejudgment Interest: 9% per annum per Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 408.040.

• Venue: Circuit Court in county where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Damage Rule: For legal malpractice, damages may accrue when they are "ascertainable" rather than when act occurred.

• Third-Party Beneficiaries: Limited recognition for estate planning malpractice claims.

This template is specific to Missouri law. Professional malpractice claims require careful attention to limitations periods and expert requirements. Always verify current law and consult with qualified Missouri counsel.