Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): defendants point to the fact that the Clients expressed their understanding that the Court’s dismissal of the class claims could be appealed at a later time, and the Clients further stated their intent to proceed with the individual claims and appeal the Court’s decision to strike the class claims at the end of litigation, to support their position. (Sanford Declaration ¶ 8.) But as Capitol Specialty points out that the correct standard is the objective, reasonable attorney one, not whether the lawyer in fact had a subjective belief that a malpractice action was probable. See Ross, 420 B.R. at 49 (“whether the [insured , 649 A.2d 291, 294 (D.C.1994) (finding an attorney “has a duty to pay attention to filing deadlines.... ”); O’Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337, 341-43 (D.C.1982) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court concludes that the acts or 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care (B) holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care (C) holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation (D) holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered (E) holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care
Output (English): holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation