But, it is equally clear that punitive damages should not financially cripple the tortfeasor. Thus, “evidence of defendant’s financial ability to pay punitive damages is admissible, that is to say that it is permissible when considering punitive damages to allow the introduction of evidence of financial worth.” Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1975). “If defendant’s financial worth is meager, it would be to his advantage to introduce such evidence in order to mitigate the damage award.” Id. at 765. Ms. Herendeen alleges ‘ that Mandel-baum failed to properly defénd the suit. By not presenting any evidence of Mr: Hutch-ins’ financial wherewithal, Mandelbaum arguably exposed him to $500,000 in punitive damages. See, e.g. Hunt v. Dresie, 241 Kan. 647, 740 P.2d 1046, 1057 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Scognamillo v. Olsen, 795 P.2d 1357, 1361
holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state holding claims against attorney for legal malpractice must be asserted by attorneys actual client absent limited exception holding that a clients legal malpractice action instituted after his attorney failed to file suit in new jersey within the statute of limitations was a reasonable response to a legal catastrophe and was not barred by the doctrine of mitigation of damages although the client could have filed suit against one of the underlying tortfeasors in mississippi which had a longer statute of limitations the client was not required to litigate in an inconvenient forum in an attempt to extricate the defendant from his own wrongful act holding that client was not barred from recovering all damages in legal malpractice suit assessed against him in previous case holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal