New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

Fred W. Nelson, etc., respondent, v Stanley Kalathara, defendant, Claude Simpson, appellant. (Index No. 3167/07)
2006-09551
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 1313
February 13, 2008, Decided

Here, plaintiff is the guardian of an incapacitated seller of real property, and defendants were the attorneys for purchaser. Purchase funds went astray, going to incapacitated sellers former guardian [and a relative.] Seller’s Guardian unsuccessfully sued purchaser’s attorneys with whom he had no privity, and was unable to convince the court that there was fraud, or independent malicious acts necessary to bring an action against purchaser’s attorneys.

Plaintiff may not sue opponent’s attorneys, or attorneys who were not acting for plaintiff in the absence of independent fraud or malicious acts.

Tsvi Dallal, respondent, v Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., appellant. (Index No. 99/2003)
2007-06135
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 1295
February 13, 2008, Decided

Defendant attorney waited too long to bring a motion for summary judgment, which had to be brought within 60 days. Court cites two Court of Appeals cases on issue, Miceli and Brill.

Hinshaw reports a fairly complicated commercial liquidated damages case arising from a bank loan to individuals which led to a default, which led to a confession of judgment, which led to a settlement, with inadequate documentation of the settlement.  At least one judgment was not marked "satisfied."  After trips up and down to the Appellate Courts there, and after changes in the law of liquidated damages, it all boiled down to a question of when the bank became aware of its attorney's mistake.

"In September 2005, Wachovia initiated a legal malpractice action in Leigh County against Ferretti, asserting claims of professional negligence and breach of contract. In February 2006, Ferretti filed an answer, asserting, inter alia, that Wachovia’s claims accrued no later than October 1994—that is, when Pisani commenced his action against Meridian—and were thus time-barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court found in favor of Ferretti and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. More specifically, the trial court found that the negligence cause of action, which carried a two-year statute of limitations, accrued in June 2003. The trial court likewise found that the breach of contract cause of action had accrued in October 1994. Thus, the statute of limitations for both claims had run prior to filing of the complaint.

Wachovia appealed, arguing that it had not in fact experienced an actual loss by that time and that a suit against Ferretti before that time would have been premature. The Pennsylvania appellate court disagreed and affirmed the dismissal. "

Clients claim that attorney forged their names on settlement documents, then stole money.  They sue attorney, get judgment, and then lost any ability to collect, when carrier successfully disclaims and wins a collection case brought by the cleints against the carrier. Wiley Rein, LLP reports:

The Supreme Court of Nebraska has held that misappropriation and dishonesty exclusions in a lawyers professional liability policy barred an attorney's former clients from executing legal malpractice judgments against the insurer that issued the policy. Fokken v. Steichen, 2008 WL 62539 (Neb. Jan. 4, 2008).

Several of the attorney's former clients accused him of settling their tort claims without their approval by signing their signatures on release agreements and settlement checks without their authorization. The former clients also asserted that they had not received any of the settlement proceeds from the attorney. Furthermore, the former clients alleged that the attorney (1) failed to communicate with them regarding the defendants' settlement offers; (2) accepted the settlement offers on their behalf without obtaining their consent; (3) allowed their tort claims to be dismissed with prejudice after the statute of limitations had expired; and (4) breached fiduciary duties owed to them. The former clients won malpractice judgments against the attorney and then instituted garnishment proceedings against the attorney's insurer, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

In granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment, the court first observed that the former clients' garnishment claims against the policy proceeds depended on whether the insurer would have been obligated to indemnify the attorney for the malpractice judgments in the first place because "the claim of a judgment creditor garnishor against a garnishee can rise no higher than the claim of the garnishor's judgment debtor against the garnishee." The court next considered the former clients' argument that "where an insurance company is notified of a pending suit against an insured and has a full opportunity to defend the action, the judgment against the insured, if obtained without fraud or collusion, will be conclusive against the insurance company." The court rejected this contention, explaining that the insurer was not challenging the malpractice judgments but was instead contending that the judgments were not covered by the policy. "

One of the more ironic but interesting aspects of legal malpractice, like quantum mechanics, is that the very act of measurement [trial] can cause the observed object to change.  Similarly, in the prosecution of a legal malpractice case, there can be legal malpractice .  Here, from the Madison Record there is the potential for a further case:

"Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack had to consider calling a mistrial Tuesday in a professional negligence case against the law firm Thompson Coburn.

Representing Magna Bank (now Regions), plaintiff's attorney Rex Carr -- whose trial skills are legendary -- informed Stack that he had been giving daily transcripts to some of his witnesses.

Carr told Stack that he has supplied trial transcripts to his experts, including his star, and protege, Belleville attorney Tom Keefe.

He said the only other time he had to deal with daily trial transcripts was during the historic three-and-a-half year-long dioxin trial he pursued in St. Clair County.

Potential witnesses were allowed to review the transcripts in that case, he said, due to the sheer volume of evidence presented during the record setting civil trial against Monsanto.

After Carr's surprise announcement that he let witnesses see that transcripts, Carrie Hogan of Jones Day in Chicago wanted Stack to call a mistrial.

Stack, who came in to work on a state holiday for judges (Lincoln's birthday), called a recess and advised Carr and Hogan to discuss the possibility of a settlement, but those talks stalled after about an hour of discussions.

Afterwards, Carr said he would exclude any witness that saw the transcripts. "

A commonly quoted statistic is that 95% of all cases are resolved prior to trial;  they are resolved through motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment and settlements.  The few cases that go on to trial generally, they calculate, go 50/50.  Here is a highly reported, big $ legal malpractice case which went to trial, and ended in a verdict for defendant.  Law.Com reports:

"A Philadelphia jury Wednesday cleared Duane Morris of a claim of legal malpractice for its representation of a former client in settlement negotiations, according to attorneys in the case.

The eight-member jury found the firm did not breach the standard of care or breach any fiduciary duty when its client signed a settlement agreement that provided no security, the attorneys said.

The case was held before Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Howland W. Abramson in the Commerce Court Program.

The eight-member jury began deliberating at about 3 p.m. on Tuesday for 3 1/2 hours and came back to deliberate at 1 p.m. Wednesday, handing down a verdict at 3 p.m. The jury was selected on Feb. 4, and closing arguments were held on Tuesday. "

Legal malpractice is a wholly state cause of action, and might be brought in Federal District Court only if there is a basis for jurisdiction.  Diversity jurisdiction is the one most quickly thought of, but in certain circumstances federal question jurisdiction may also apply.  Questions of legal malpractice in a patent representation is one such example.  Here, the case of  Immunocept v. Fulbright & Jaworsky provides a discussion of why it may [and on removal, must] be brought in Federal District Court.  There they say:

"Because the claim scope determination involved in the malpractice claim presents a substantial question of patent law, we conclude that jurisdiction is proper under section 1338."

In Scher v. Mishkit  [NYLJ exerpt], Supreme Court, Suffolk County refused to allow this attorney to wifhdraw pursuant to CPLR 321.  This situation is more common than one might guess, especially in medical malpractice cases.  The case is brought, and prosecuted, with depositions, and medical record exchanges, and then placed on the calendar, without an expert in place. 

Not unexpectedly, time goes by, and the case starts to be near the top of the list for jury selection, and defendants have not offered to settle.  Plaintiff's attorney still has no expert, and it starts to look like they may simply have worked this case up on the assumption [hope] that defendants would settle...and now they have a problem.

That's what this case seems to be about. "PLAINTIFF'S lawyer moved to withdraw as the attorney of record asserting that the attorney-client relationship was at an "impasse." Counsel argued it was unable to find an expert willing to testify for plaintiff at trial in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff opposed the motion, alleging she cooperated with counsel and through all the years of representation received "constant assurance that this was a valid case."

Result?  Attorney must stay in case.

It is an ethical  violation of 22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][iv]  willfully to fail to satisfy a judgment arising out of one's professional activities.  For the most part, these judgments arise from legal malpractice. Here  an attorney is suspended because of an unsatisfied judgment:

"Respondent's failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation (22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][i]) and her willful failure to pay money owed to a former client, which debt is demonstrated by a judgment (22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][iv]), warrant her immediate suspension (see In re Zimmerman, 45 AD3d 212 [2007]; Matter of McClain-Sewer, 39 AD3d 35 [2007]; In re Singer, 301 AD2d 336 [2002]; In re Adelman, 263 AD2d 160 [1999]). Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, until the proceedings pending before the Committee are concluded and until further order of this Court. "

So far the central question in this legal malpractice case is whether it is taking place in a judicial hellhole, and incidently, who gets to make that decision.

This is a legal malpractice case taking place in Madison County, Illinois.  Here is the story from the Madison St. Claire Record:

"Relics of Madison County's past are scheduled to reappear for a legal malpractice trial that will open old, painful wounds and be as dramatic as anything ever seen in an Edwardsville courtroom.

The heart of the matter is about the area's most notorious swindler James Gibson who stole millions from children and widows by making off with their structured settlement funds.

But legendary plaintiff's attorney Rex Carr -- who plans to call former Madison County judges Gordon Maag and Randall Bono and prolific personal injury attorney Thomas Q. Keefe as witnesses -- is trying to convince the jury to take pity on another victim in the "debacle," his client, Magna Bank (now Regions Bank).

Indiana Legal Blog reports on the Transcontinental legal malpractice case.  We reported on it earlier, but there seems to be a new twist:

"On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals did not accept the excess insurer’s argument that they should be allowed to bring a legal malpractice claim against the client’s attorneys under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. The Indiana Court of Appeals found no material issue of fact in finding that limited correspondence between the excess insurer and the client’s attorneys fell significantly short of constituting an attorney/client relationship. Id. at 724. Furthermore, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that allowing the legal malpractice suit under the doctrine of equitable subrogation would essentially be the same as allowing an assignment of the cause of action from one party to another, which it will not do. Id. at 723. In support of the holding, the Indiana Court of Appeals explained it will not allow legal malpractice actions in these situations for the reason that allowing them would divide the loyalty of the attorneys. If allowed, attorneys will be tempted in not vigorously representing their clients in order to protect themselves against third parties such as the excess insurer in this case. Id.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted a petition to transfer and the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion has been vacated. "

Here is a commentary from Larry Upshaw  on the pro/con arguments for a law firm putting an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement.  From plaintiff's prospective, it can be a costly problem.  Take a commercial legal malpractice in which there are potential $ 1 million damages.

A trial can be had for the cost of an index number.  The arbitrator's fees can be as high as $ 50,000.

From the blog: "It’s curious that many lawyers routinely put arbitration clauses in their engagement letters with clients. Here you have quite literally the foot soldiers in the third branch of government, charged by our professional oath to be officers of the court. And yet, in contracts with clients, these attorneys opt out of the court system by obligating clients to take any dispute to arbitration.

The subtext of that conduct seems clear: these lawyers don’t trust the court system to treat them fairly and prefer the private dispute resolution process of arbitration to court. Call me crazy, but that certainly sounds out of whack. It’s kind of like a doctor saying, “If I get sick, whatever you do, do not take me to a hospital.”

While it may seem ironic that lawyers are running for protection to arbitration clauses, there is an even bigger ironic surprise waiting for these lawyers who opt out of the court system. Keep in mind that the arbitration clause in your engagement letter obligates your client to pursue his or her malpractice claim against you in arbitration instead of in court. And it therefore obligates your insurance carrier to have its liability for your malpractice determined in arbitration instead of in court. It turns out that insurance companies actually like jury trials and are not always all that fond of arbitration. Lawyers who force their clients into arbitration and then get an arbitration case for malpractice are now routinely receiving a “Reservation of Rights” letter from their insurance carrier, threatening to deny insurance coverage because the lawyer deprived the insurance company of its right to a jury trial.

Next time you are tempted to show your distrust for the court system by including an arbitration clause in your fee contracts, keep in mind that you may have just cancelled your malpractice insurance policy. "

Here is a case from Richmond County with an interesting twist.  Facts:  Mother gets into money trouble and faces foreclosure.  Daughter helps out and negotiates a mortgage to pay off the earlier debts and prevent foreclosure.  An attorney is "assigned" by the mortage company for the mother.  Later Mom comes to believe that the terms and fees of the mortgage have been misrepresented.  She stops paying and this action endues.

After being sued, she third-parties the attorney.  Now he, as a third-party defendant moves to dismiss.

"In support of his motion to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), attorney Bellini maintains that the factual allegations in the third-party complaint preclude the maintenance of a cause of action against him for breach of fiduciary duty. In this regard, Bellini purports to rely upon the allegations that: (1) it was the daughter, Elizabeth Giammarino, who was acting as the third-party plaintiff's attorney-in-fact; (2) the third-party plaintiff did not attend the closing; and (3) attorney Bellini never spoke to the third-party plaintiff prior thereto. On the basis of this "documentary evidence," Bellini contends that any cause of action against him for breach of fiduciary duty could only run in favor of Mrs. Giammarino's daughter, Elizabeth.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) provides that a party may move for the dismissal of one or more causes of action asserted against it on the ground of a defense founded upon documentary evidence. To succeed on such a motion, however, the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all of the factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of plaintiff's claim (see, Scadura v. Robillard, 256 AD2d 567 [2nd Dept. 1998]). Thus, a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense to the action as a matter of law (see, Ruby Falls, Inc. v. Ruby Falls Partners, LLC., 39 AD3d 619 [2nd Dept. 2007]). Here, the third-party defendant has not met this burden.

The allegation that the daughter was acting under a power of attorney as her mother's attorney-in-fact does not conclusively establish the absence of a fiduciary duty between the third-party plaintiff and counselor Bellini. Accordingly, this fact, standing alone, will not support dismissal. "

STEPHEN F. BRUMMER, PLAINTIFF, v TOWN OF TONAWANDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. CHRISTOPHER A. SPENCE, P.C., APPELLANT; THE BARNES FIRM, P.C., SUCCESSOR TO CELLINO & BARNES, RESPONDENT.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 871
February 1, 2008, Decided

Attorney 1 represents a construction accident plaintiff up to the point of a motion for summary judgment against the employer on Labor Law section 240. He is replaced by Attorney 2, who continues the case through settlement. In the ensuing attorney fee dispute Attorney 2 claims that Attorney 1 committed legal malpractice and is due no fees. The court holds that the question of attorney malpractice may be raised only by plaintiff, if it chooses to sue Attorney 1. Query: will Attorney defend such a suit with a collateral estoppel argument?

Samuel Cosentino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Defendant-Respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 625

January 31, 2008, Decided

Complaint dismissed when plaintiff cannot show “but for” causation, and makes wholly conclusory arguments. This formulation by the court is often simply another way of saying that they do not like the case. One day’s conclusory allegations are the next days satisfactory complaint. Here, the court did not like the ethical rule violations argument at all.

Brian Cohen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Michael Weitzner, Esq., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 618;
January 31, 2008, Decided

“Plaintiffs allege that the settlement required them to pay more in taxes than they had anticipated based on a spreadsheet prepared for them by defendants in which, due to a typographical error, their tax liability for the year 2000 was understated by $ 121, 000, and that they have been damaged in that amount by defendants' misrepresentation. However, plaintiffs' tax liability was correctly reflected in the returns they filed before retaining defendants and entering into the settlement agreement. In any event, their tax liability was not the subject of the negotiations with the IRS. Thus, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants' error damaged them.”

Elaine Lupo, Plaintiff-Respondent, against Alan M. Cass and Alan M. Cass & Associates, Defendants-Appellants.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 50170U;
January 29, 2008, Decided

“Plaintiff's first cause of action alleging legal malpractice was sufficiently pleaded to survive defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss. The alleged facts if accepted as true, accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and evaluated only as to whether they fit within any cognizable legal theory sufficiently stated plaintiff's claim that but for defendants' negligence in their representation of plaintiff in a Worker's Compensation proceeding, she would have prevailed on the underlying claims.”

Here, plaintiff’s worker’s compensation case was lost when defendants showed up for a medical causation hearing without a physician, but worse, had the opportunity to notify the court and did not. The court would not adjourn the hearing, and found against the plaintiff.

Law.Com reports this Philadelphia case.  "In opening statements on Tuesday in Adlerstein v. Duane Morris, physicist Joseph K. Adlerstein's attorney, Clifford E. Haines, said Duane Morris was responsible for his client only receiving $200,000 of a $1.8 million settlement with SpectruMedix, the company he founded. And that $200,000, he said, ultimately went toward rising legal bills from Duane Morris. Haines is the name partner with Clifford E. Haines & Associates. "

While the case is widely reported in Law.Com and other blogs, there are three standout items here which would have different results in NY:

1.  The defaulting payor filed a bankruptcy action;

2.  There is no discussion of "collectiblity" from the bankrupt;

3.  Plaintiff has already been found liable for attorney fees to Duane Morris.  There is no discussion of collateral estoppel based upon that finding.

Thoroughly investigate any human endeavor, and error can be found.  Legal malpractice law holds that one must demonstrate that "but for" the attorney's error, there would have been a better or different result.  This case, Cohen v Weitzner ,2008 NY Slip Op 00618 ,Decided on January 31, 2008 .Appellate Division, First Department  illustrates the rule:

"Plaintiffs allege that the settlement required them to pay more in taxes than they had anticipated based on a spreadsheet prepared for them by defendants in which, due to a typographical error, their tax liability for the year 2000 was understated by $121,000, and that they have been damaged in that amount by defendants' misrepresentation. However, plaintiffs' tax liability was correctly reflected in the returns they filed before retaining defendants and entering into the settlement agreement. In any event, their tax liability was not the subject of the negotiations with the IRS. Thus, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants' error damaged them (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421-422 [1996]; Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 386-387 [1992]). Further, as defendants were retained to try to obtain a reduction in the penalties assessed against plaintiffs, and they succeeded, there can be no claim
that they breached a duty to plaintiffs (see generally Dweck Law Firm v Mann, 283 AD2d 292, 293 [2001]). "

When does a municipality have knowledge of "the essential facts" upon which a claim is made, and when does a municipality have "actual knowledge"?  This seemingly small distinction has grave consequences for a plaintiff, and incidentally plaintiff's attorney,

Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist. ,2008 NY Slip Op 00691 ,Decided on January 29, 2008 ,Appellate Division, Second Department .

"CRANE, J.P. An injured person who has failed to serve a timely notice of claim may, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), apply for permission to serve a late notice. Among the "facts and circumstances" a court must consider in determining an application for permission to serve a late notice of claim are the actual knowledge of the public corporation of the "essential facts constituting the claim" and the prejudice to the public corporation from a claimant's failure to serve a timely notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). Here, we take the opportunity to clarify the standards relevant to the courts' exercise of discretion in deciding these applications, so the outcomes are more predictable and not merely the product of judicial whimsy. More precisely, we grapple with the distinction between, on the one hand, the knowledge obtained by a public corporation [including a school district (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]; [*2]General Construction Law §§ 66[1]-[4])] of the "essential facts constituting the claim," and, on the other, the knowledge obtained by a public corporation of facts about an accident and the resulting injury that do not amount to the essential facts constituting the claim. We also analyze the effect of this distinction in determining whether the lack of a timely notice of claim has substantially prejudiced a public corporation in its ability to defend the claim on the merits.
 

We have consistently held that a public corporation's knowledge of the accident and the injury, without more, does not constitute "actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim" (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; see Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 527, 528), at least where the incident and the injury do not necessarily occur only as the result of fault for which it may be liable. In order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the public corporation must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves.

Finally, a claimant seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) bears the burden of showing that the delay will not substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658; Matter of Dumancela v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 32 AD3d 515, 516; Breedon v Valentino, 19 AD3d 527, 528). It makes sense that the burden of establishing the lack of prejudice be placed on the claimant, who, after all, is seeking to excuse his or her failure to comply with the statute. Of course, when the public corporation has actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim, it may be easier for a claimant to meet this burden (see Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717, 719). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has recently observed that "proof that the defendant had actual knowledge is an important factor in determining whether the defendant is substantially prejudiced by such a delay" (Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d at 539; see Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658; Matter of Vasquez v City of Newburgh, 35 AD3d 621, 623; Rechenberger v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 112 AD2d 150, 153). Thus, for example, in Jordan v City of New York, which concerned a car accident, the claimant, the driver, was able to establish that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim because the passengers in his car had served timely notices of claim. A fortiori, the City was not prejudiced by his delay in serving a timely notice of claim (see Jordan v City of New York, 41 AD3d 658).

Here is a case from Louisiana found by the Law Profession Blog..  While it has very unfamiliar language in it, the situation is very familiar.  Doctor is sued for medical malpractice.  He does not have a consent policy.  Carrier settles without telling him some important things, such as, they waived a jury trial for him.  He sues the carrier and the attorneys for settling without telling him.  Result?  The case continues.  Dismissal in favor of the carrier reversed.

Here are some of the interesting terms:  "precription"  "permeptory exception of peremption." 

Familar issues:  discovery versus statute of limitations, waiting too long to sue.  The court says: "After careful review of the record, we find it was reasonable for Dr. Teague not to recognise what prompted the defendants to mediate and settle...."

Yesterday we reported that the Purlite legal malpractice case was going to the jury;  it appeared from reports that a question of the statute of limitations would be the most important issue.  Now, breaking news is that the trial ends with a defense verdict, but on the merits and not on the question of the statute of limitations.  From NY Lawyer:

"Morgan Lewis & Bockius yesterday defeated a $20 million breach of contract claim brought by a former client.

The 12 jurors in Brodie v. Morgan Lewis came back just before noon after three-and-one-half hours of deliberations over two days. They were unanimous in their defense verdict.

While the jury found that Bro-Tech Corp. - operating as Purolite - and its owners Don and Stefan Brodie properly brought the suit within the four-year statute of limitations, they said Morgan Lewis did not breach its contract with the Brodies by advising them to continue selling their water filtration products to companies in Cuba.

The case was held before Senior Judge Albert W. Sheppard in Philadelphia's Commerce Court Program.

The verdict is a win for Morgan Lewis as well as its counsel, William J. O'Brien and Nancy Gellman of Conrad O'Brien Gellman & Rohn. "

It may be a sign of the new economic times, or it may simply be a new trend, but legal malpractice cases are increasing in the bankruptcy setting.  NY Lawyer reports a fraudulent concealment - legal malpractice case by the trustee against an attorney and firm today.

"In In re Food Management Group (Grubin v. Rattet), 04-22880, Judge Martin Glenn ruled that allegations of fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and fraud on the court could proceed against attorneys Robert L. Rattet and Jonathan S. Pasternak, as well as the law firm Rattet, Pasternak & Gordon Oliver.

The lawyers and the firm are accused of failing to disclose that an "insider" of debtor Food Management Group had violated a court order by submitting a bid in the auction of the company's assets.

The trustee also alleged that the lawyers improperly failed to disclose that they had represented one of the insiders before the auction.

Judge Glenn said that if the allegations are proven, the attorneys and their firm engaged in "serious wrongdoing."

Purolite hired defendant law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius for advice on whether they could sell products to Cuba.  The law firm gave advice, Purolite came under criminal investigation, and a law suit was born. NY Lawyer reports

"Both sides said Morgan Lewis' original advice in 1993 was for the company to stop all sales to Cuba and a memorandum was sent to all employees to that effect. When two Purolite sales people from Canada and the United Kingdom called to say such a move would put them in violation of their respective countries' blocking orders, Morgan Lewis advised Purolite days later to continue to sell to Cuba from foreign offices but to ensure that there was no U.S. involvement with those sales, Purolite's attorney told the jury."

Now, it seems the central issue at the trial of this case is the statute of limitations.  When did Purolite realize it had a legal malpractice cause of action?  "After more than two weeks of testimony and years of previous litigation, the $20 million case that pits water filtration company Purolite against its former law firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, could come down to the first question on the verdict sheet – whether the case is barred by the statute of limitations.

Although attorneys for both sides in Bro-Tech v. Morgan Lewis spent the majority of yesterday morning's closing statements discussing whether Purolite and its owners, Stefan and Don Brodie, should prevail in their breach of contract claim against the firm, they concluded with discussions of whether the claim was properly filed within the four-year statute of limitations. Bro-Tech is the parent company of Purolite ."

This case has gone from US District Court to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to the NY Court of Appeals, and back to District Court.  It's a case in which the question now is whether the retainer agreement is in effect, whether misconduct by the attorney vitiates the agreement, and to whom a big fee goes.

"This dispute between the plaintiff, Edward C. King ("King" or the "Plaintiff"), a musician, and his lawyer, defendant Lawrence A. Fox ("Fox" or the "Defendant") concerning the retainer agreement between them has occupied this Court, the magistrate judge, the Court of Appeals on two occasions, and the New York Court of Appeals over the past ten years. Presently at issue is Fox's motion to strike King's demand for a jury trial; initially made in August, 2003, deferred as a consequence of the grant of summary judgment for Fox in January, 2004, and renewed on October 31, 2007, after the remand from the Court of Appeals on August 11, 2006. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied."

22 NYCRR 1215 is a section of the law that governs attorney fees and engagement letters or retainer agreements.  Until recently, courts have had differeing interpretations of the penalty when an attorney seeks fees but has no retainer agreement or engagement letter.

The cases were decided in three different ways:  the first allowed the attorrney fees determined in quantum meruit, the second was that the attorney could keep collected fees but no future fees, and the third was to allow no fees at all.

Along came the case of Rubenstein v. Ganea held:

"We find that a strict rule prohibiting the recovery of counsel fees for an attorney's noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 is not appropriate and could create unfair windfalls for clients, particularly where clients know that the legal services they receive are not pro bono and where the failure to comply with the rule is not willful (see Matter of Feroleto, supra at 684). Our holding would be different were this matter a matrimonial action governed by the more stringent disciplinary requirements of 22 NYCRR 1400.3 and Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 (c) (2). Here, Ganea concedes in her reply brief that "she did not think all legal services received would be free." Rubenstein's failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 was unintentional, no doubt attributed to the promulgation of the rule only seven weeks prior to his retention. Accordingly, the{**41 AD3d at 64} Supreme Court correctly held that Rubenstein could seek recovery of attorneys' fees upon the theory of quantum meruit.[FN7]"

Now, the case of Mallin v. Nash in New York County adopts the Second Department's holding:

"Public policy dictates that courts pay particular attention to fee arrangements between attorneys and their clients, as it is important that a fee contract be fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by the client (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993, 499 NYS2d 381, 489 NE2d 1283 [1985]; Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 176, 507 NYS2d 610, 499 NE2d 864 [1986]; Matter of Bizar & Martin v U.S. Ice Cream Corp., 228 AD2d 588, 644 NYS2d 753 [2d Dept 1996]). If the terms of a retainer agreement are not established, or if a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney may recover only in quantum meruit to the extent that the fair and reasonable value of legal services can be established (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658, 602 NYS2d 788, 622 NE2d 288 [1983]; Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 43, 556 NYS2d 239, 555 NE2d 611 [1990]; Matter of Schanzer, 7 AD2d 275, 182 NYS2d 475 [1st Dept 1959], affd 8 NY2d 972, 204 NYS2d 349, 169 NE2d 11 [1960]).

 In Mallin, the attorney was awarded no fees under quantum meruit.

Christian, son of Marlon Brando died last week, and the AP his former wife has now started a legal malpractice action concerning his will and codicils.  "But his family requested the autopsy on Monday "based on his past drug history," Los Angeles County coroner's Lt Fred Corral said.

The autopsy, including a toxicology analysis, was scheduled for Tuesday, Mr Corral said.

Also on Monday, Christian Brando's ex-wife Deborah sued the executors of Marlon Brando's estate, claiming she is a victim of professional negligence, fraud and deceit.

She claimed that, as part of a February 2007 settlement with Christian Brando in a domestic violence case, she would become assignee of her ex-husband's rights and claims in the estate.

Deborah Brando accused producer Mike Medavoy and fellow executors Larry J Dressler and Avra Douglas of executing a forged codicil to Brando's will days before his death in July 1, 2004.

Small or Multi-billion dollar case, legal malpractice cases all rest upon the same three bases:  deviation from accepted practice, proximate cause and damage.  As an example, here is a smallish case from the Madison Record:

"A legal malpractice claim filed by Cydney Hollaway against Fairview Heights attorney Thomas C. Rich alleges she did not receive an adequate award for injuries in a workers' compensation claim.

Hollaway, represented by Patricia A. Zimmer of Ripplinger & Zimmer in Belleville, is seeking in excess of $50,000 in damages plus costs of the suit.

According to the suit filed Jan. 22 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Rich allegedly presented Holloway's claim to an arbitrator as one for wage differential instead of one for permanent total disability.

Holloway was injured while working for Four Truckers, Inc. on Feb. 8, 2001, the suit claims. Holloway contracted with Rich on Feb. 15, 2001, whereby Rich would represent Holloway in a work comp claim.

"On December 13, 2005, defendant presented plaintiff's claim at a hearing before Illinois Workers Compensation Commission Arbitrator John Dibble," the complaint states.

"On January 23, 2006, Arbitrator Dibble issued his decision, which awarded plaintiff compensation in the form of a wage differential."

Holloway claims she had a viable claim for permanent total disability and would have been successful in obtaining an award, "but for defendant's negligence."

From an unpublished Illinois case, discussed  by  the Illinois Legal Malpractice Blog, we are reminded of the fact that a bankruptcy filing will generally cut off plaintiff's right to bring any law suit, including the legal malpractice case.  Two things that always bear review:

1.  When one files bankruptcy, everything, including potential unpled causes of action become part of the bankrupt's estate, and no longer personal to the bankrupt;

2.  Attorney fee disputes serve as collateral estoppel to a later legal malpractice case.

On some ocassions, the dissection of a case yields interesting insights.  Here is a Second Department Case: Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C. ,  2008 NY Slip Op 00472
Decided on January 22, 2008 ,Appellate Division, Second Department  which illustrates several points:

1.  Some cases are a problem from begining to end.  In this case there have been three appeals, and the case ends when plaintiff fails to file a note of issue, and cannot explain why, or show a meritorious case.

2.  Nassau and Suffolk notes of issue dates are sacrosanct.  "The certification order of the Supreme Court dated February 3, 2006, directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days and warning that the action would be deemed dismissed without further order of the court if the plaintiff failed to comply with that directive, had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Louis v MTA Long Is. Bus Co., 44 AD3d 628; Hoffman v Kessler, 28 AD3d 718).

3.  Louis is more often cited for the proposition that the order of court [Kings, for example] did not have the same effect as a CPLR 3216 notice.

4.  It is usually a bad sign when the plaintiff-Appellant's attorney is not listed on the appellate decision.  Generally, it means that the attorney did not ask for, or attend for oral argument.  Often a bad choice, it tells the court that appellant is not really interested in the outcome.

5.  This court determined that everyone here made mistakes:

"Moreover, the plaintiff's motion papers failed to establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we have not previously decided this issue in his favor. On a prior appeal, we held that the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of a motion by the defendants Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., Peter Kramer, and Michael Balducci (hereinafter the defendants) which were to dismiss certain of the plaintiff's causes of action insofar as asserted against them as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, 250 AD2d 581). On a second prior appeal, we held that the Supreme Court should have denied a motion by the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the same causes of action, on the ground that they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, 288 AD2d 281). Finally, on a third prior appeal, we reversed so much of an order of the Supreme Court as granted a motion by the defendants for leave to renew their prior summary judgment motion, on the ground that they failed to meet the requirements of CPLR 2221(e)(3)(see Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 19 AD3d 391). Thus, we have never previously held that the subject causes of action are, in fact, meritorious.

6.  One really should put everything into demonstrating a meritorious cause of action.  "To establish the merit of his claims, the plaintiff tendered a copy of his verified complaint, which, in relevant part, stated that "[t]he defendants made no efforts to secure a default judgment" against a defendant in an underlying personal injury action, thereby committing legal malpractice. Without even a modicum of proof that a default judgment properly could have been obtained against that defendant in the underlying action (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 70-71; CPLR 3215[f]), we cannot conclude that the plaintiff established the existence of a meritorious cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice.

We've reported on the widespread influence of Deleware corporate law.  Many attorneys seemingly practice Delaware law without setting a foot there, without holding themselves out as Delaware attorneys.  This happens when they advise corporate clients on how Delaware would act.

Here, in a Hinshaw report, is the collalary:  Delaware exercising personal jurisdiction over an ever widening group of lawyers.  "The Delaware Court of Chancery held that it had personal jurisdiction over an out of state law firm alleged to have been involved in a client’s tortious schemes because, inter alia, the law firm filed a corporate certificate amendment in Delaware. "  Read the entire report

Its Idaho, and its Winter.  However, this is not a weather blog.  Here is a case illustrating the age old conflict of interest between the insured and its insurer.  Here, the insured says that defendant attorney's mission was to protect the insurance company, not the insured.

The Times-News reports: "St. Luke's Magic Valley Regional Medical Center has sued a Washington attorney who once represented the hospital in an ongoing dispute, saying the attorney did not adequately defend against claims of Medicare fraud and other alleged improprieties.

The complaint, filed Jan. 17 in U.S. District Court in Boise, claims that Tom Luciani intentionally breached his fiduciary duty and committed professional malpractice while representing the hospital and Farmers Insurance between July 2003 and early 2006. Luciani was brought on by the insurance company to represent the hospital during litigation that started in 2001 with a tort claim against the hospital by two former employees.
According to the hospital's most recent court filing, Luciani had a longstanding relationship with Farmers, which brought him in to replace another lawyer when the case moved to federal court. Following the desires of the insurance company, the complaint states, Luciani's strategy focused on protecting Farmers from any damages while leaving the hospital open to a possible $22 million judgment.

After the hospital discovered Luciani had no plan to produce an expert witness to counter testimony from a plaintiff's witness it hired its own counsel in 2006 - Chicago-based McDermott, Will and Emery LLP, one of the largest law firms in the country. "

Here is an Idaho Decision from the Supreme Court of Idaho, which discusses how the statements of an attorney, representing his client in a court proceeding. may be used against him later, as "admissions,"

"The issue is, whether an attorney's statements in the course of representation fo a client may be used against that attorney in a subsequent legal malpractice case."  Here, the Supreme Court says they may not be used.  Read this thoughful opinion.

Here is a New York Law Journal report of a legal malpractice case involving the White House, sitting judges, and other big players.

"Blackwater Security filed a $30 million malpractice suit against Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein on Wednesday, alleging the firm made costly missteps in a wrongful death case brought on behalf of four former Blackwater employees who were killed in Iraq in 2004. The complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, claims Wiley Rein lawyers filed sloppy pleadings that ultimately barred Blackwater from shifting the case from a state court in North Carolina to federal district court, where the security firm could have mounted a stronger defense. After losing its bid to have the case transferred in October 2005, Blackwater discarded its Wiley Rein team, which included: Fred Fielding, now White House counsel; Barbara Van Gelder, now an attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Scott McCaleb, who is a partner with Wiley Rein; and Margaret Ryan, now a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Many legal malpractice cases arise from failures to file a notice of claim against a municipality or against the state.  The case law is rife with General Municipal Law mistakes, as well as Court of Claims Act errors.  This case, which involves not New York but Louisiana, shocks the conscience.

Boudreaux v. State of Louisaina Department of Transportation, decided yesterday in the Appellate Division 1st Department reminds us that no matter how difficult it is to litigate against the City or State, Louisiana is a whole 'nuther place. 

"The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit, recently opined that "[a] judgment creditor of a political subdivision of the state has no way to collect its judgment except by appropriation ... Appropriation of funds is discretionary and not ministerial, and mandamus will not lie to compel payment of a judgment by a political subdivision" (The Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v City of Shreveport, 962 So2d 1075, 1077 1078 [La 2007], see also Cooper v Orleans Parish School Bd., 742 So2d 55, 64 [La 1999], writ denied 751 So2d 858 [La 1999]).

Plaintiffs herein have registered their judgment in 18 Louisiana parishes but, to date, the Louisiana Legislature has declined to appropriate the funds necessary to pay that judgment. As a result, plaintiffs now seek, in our view, to do an end run around their own legislature, and the laws of their home state, by attempting to enforce the judgment in the New York courts.

So, win your case, and the State of Louisiana need not pay it, ever. 

Qualcom v. Boradcom Corp. is an important case.  Duane Morris reports that it will set the standard for all electronic discovery in litigation.  Once the standard is set, attorneys will be expected to heed and obey.

"The district court was particularly concerned with upholding the good faith standard necessitated by the discovery system and emphasized that for the system to work in a time when documents are stored electronically, "attorneys and clients must work together to ensure that both understand how and where electronic documents, records and emails are maintained and to determine how best to locate, review, and produce responsive documents."

Emphasizing that it is the responsibility of attorneys (both in-house counsel and retained counsel) to make certain that their clients carry out an effective and comprehensive document search, the court noted that "[p]roducing 1.2 million pages of marginally relevant documents while hiding 46,000 critically important ones does not constitute good faith and does not satisfy either the client's or attorney's discovery obligations." The court suggested that in-house counsel have a duty to confirm the veracity of any signed papers produced during discovery.

The district court's solution was to order Qualcomm to implement a "comprehensive Case Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations ('CREDO') program" which, at a minimum, includes:

(1) identifying the factors that contributed to the discovery violation . . . , (2) creating and evaluating proposals, procedures, and processes that will correct the deficiencies identified in subsection (1), (3) developing and finalizing a comprehensive protocol that will prevent future discovery violations . . . , (4) applying the protocol that was developed in subsection (3) to other factual situations, such as when the client does not have corporate counsel, when the client has a single in-house lawyer, when the client has a large legal staff, and when there are two law firms representing one client, (5) identifying and evaluating data tracking systems, software, or procedures that corporations could implement to better enable inside and outside counsel to identify potential sources of discoverable documents . . . , and (6) any other information or suggestions that will help prevent discovery violations.

The court ordered that the attorneys submit a proposed protocol for the court to evaluate and revise, if necessary. While the district court's immediate goal was to remedy this specific instance of misconduct, the court hoped that its opinion would be a "road map" for electronic discovery and would "assist counsel and corporate clients in complying with their ethical and discovery obligations and conducting the requisite 'reasonable inquiry.'"

Electronic Discovery is with us, has been regulated, and there are now standards for its use in litigation.  Attorneys for clients now have to advise on how to store, produce, resist demands, and comply with the appropriate rules.

Whenever there is general agreement upon a standard of practice, the question of deviation from that standard arises.  This is the central tenant of legal malpractice:  if there is a standard, attorneys must adhear. 

Duane Morris reports on the Quallcom case: "The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's latest opinion in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958 (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), issued on January 7, 2008, serves as a warning to all corporate litigants regarding electronically stored documents and emails. This warning is especially applicable for in-house counsel, of which several were engulfed in this quagmire. The court ordered Qualcomm to pay all of Broadcom's litigation costs — around $8.5 million — for "intentionally with[holding] tens of thousands of decisive documents from its opponent in an effort to win this case and gain a strategic business advantage over Broadcom." In addition, the attorneys most heavily involved were referred to the California State Bar for violations of their ethical duties. "

What does a client do when faced with an attorney fee demand?  As is true with most things in life, a reflexive response is precisesly the wrong move.  Many clients [and unfortunately many attorneys] advise or choose to arbitrate the fee dispute.  Bravely, they go to the arbitration and argue piecemeal against the fee.

Let's look at an example.  In a matrimonial action, attorney for wife bills $ 150,000.  Husband is required to pay $ 100,000 and wife is billed for $ 50,000.  Let's assume that she is really really  unhappy with the outcome, and believes that there has been malpractice.  What should she do?

The first thought is fee arbitration.  Many think that the fee can be trimmed, or trimmed significantly, and go in to the arbitration arguing that there has been malpractice.  Why is this bad?

A recent case, Pickard v Tarnow ,2007 NY Slip Op 52377(U) [18 Misc 3d 1102(A)] ,Decided on December 3, 2007 ,Supreme Court, New York County ,Madden,  illustrates the problem.

In a nutshell, if the arbitrators allow any fees,  even a dollar, they have implicitly determined that there is no legal malpractice, and there can be no future legal malpractice case brought.

"Although the court has jurisdiction over the defendants, the action against them must be dismissed as barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on the determination in the arbitration that Tarnow was entitled to recover fees for his legal services despite Pickard's assertion in that proceeding of defects in Tarnow's representation of her.

Collateral estoppel or "issue preclusion" prevents a party from relitigating an identical issue which has previously been decided against it in a prior action in which it had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the issue. See Allied Chemical v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 NY2d 271 (1988), cert denied, 488 US 1005 (1989). The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the issue was necessarily decided in the earlier action, while [*3]the party who opposes the application of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that it did not have a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination. Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-04 (2001).

Here, defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the issue of malpractice was necessarily decided during the arbitration of the fee dispute in which Pickard contested the fee based on substantially the same alleged acts of malpractice that provide the basis for this action. See Weinstein v. Cohen, 2007 WL 3407107,AD2d(2d Dept 2007)(holding that plaintiff's action alleging that defendants charged her excessive fees and committed legal malpractice in connection with their representation of her in a matrimonial action was precluded by prior determination that defendants were entitled to a substantial portion of the total fees they sought in a fee arbitration requested by plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 136); Altamore v Friedman, 193 AD2d 240, 244 (2d Dept 1993), lv dismissed, 83 NY2d 906 (1994) (holding that client was barred from bringing a legal malpractice action against his attorney after an arbitration award was issued in attorney's favor in connection with a fee dispute since both the fee arbitration and the legal malpractice action shared "at the core, claims of attorney malpractice"); Kinberg v. Garr, 28 AD3d 245, 246(1st Dept 2006)("[p]laintiff's adverse determination in defendants' prior action to recover fees for the rendering of professional services precludes a finding of malpractice with regard to the same services); Djeddah v. Starr, 306 AD2d 59 (1st Dept), lv denied, 100 NY2d 516 (2003)(client's arguments based on claims of malpractice were barred by prior unappealed order recognizing attorney's charging lien and referring the matter for an assessment).

Moreover, although the arbitrators did not directly state whether their determination included the malpractice issues, all of the allegations set forth by Pickard in her Fee Dispute Application and in her supporting documentation focus on Tarnow's alleged misconduct in his representation of her in her divorce case. In addition, it can inferred from the arbitrators' statement that their decision was "based on a voluminous record," that they reviewed and considered all of the evidence before them.

Furthermore, Pickard does not argue that she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of Tarnow's alleged malpractice in the arbitration. In fact, the exhibits submitted by defendants in support of this motion, indicate that Pickard provided the arbitrators with detailed submissions to support her assertion that Tarnow had committed malpractice and therefore should not be awarded a fee.

Pickard maintains, however, that the arbitrators did not have authority to consider the issues of legal malpractice, such that there was no adjudication of those issues in the fee arbitration. Specifically, Pickard contends that the arbitration was conducted pursuant to 22 NYCRR 137 (Part 137), which "establishes the New York State Fee Dispute Resolution Program, which provides for the informal and expeditious resolution of fee disputes between attorneys and clients through arbitration and mediation," and which excludes "claims involving substantial legal questions, including professional malpractice or misconduct." (22 NYCRR 137.1(b)(3)).

This argument is unavailing. Since Part 137 is applicable to cases "where representation has commenced on or after January 1, 2002" (22 NYCRR 137.1(a)), it does not apply to the parties' fee arbitration, as it is undisputed that defendants commenced their representation of [*4]Pickard prior to that effective date. Rather, the provisions of 22 NYCRR 136 (Part 136) continue to apply to fee disputes in all domestic relations matters subject to that Part in which representation began prior to January 1, 2002.

Unlike the bar to adjudicating legal malpractice claims contained in Part 137, Part 136 contains no such limitation. Pursuant to Part 136.4 (b), "[t]he Administrative Judge may decline to accept or continue to arbitrate a dispute in which substantial legal questions are raised in addition to the basic fee dispute." Here, as the arbitration was held despite the issues of malpractice raised by Pickard, the arbitrators were entitled to consider these issues.

Accordingly, as defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the identical issue of malpractice was necessarily decided in connection with the arbitration, and as Pickard has not shown that she did not have a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars this action for legal malpractice. "

It is rare to see a pro-se defendant in the rarified air of Federal District Court, even more rare for both sides to be pro-se.  Here,  in DANIEL KIRK and LINDA KIRK, v.  JOSEPH M. HEPPT, ESQ.,
05 Civ. 9977 (RWS) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK January 16, 2008, Filed , the tide seems to be turning in favor of the defendant attorney. 

Plaintiff unsuccessfully sued for employment discrimination, and when the case failed, turned, pro-se to sue his attorney.  The attorney counterclaimed for defamation and his fees.  Federal District Court Judge Sweet found everyone's position to be deficient in some manner:

"The Plaintiffs' first cause of action alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the federal mail fraud statute, and is based upon the mailing of allegedly fraudulent invoices from Heppt's office in Manhattan to the Kirks' residence in New Jersey (Compl. P 23). However, there is no private right of action for violations of the federal mail fraud statute. See Pharr v. Evergreen Garden, Inc., 123 Fed. Appx. 420, 422 (2d Cir. 2005) ("The law in this circuit is clear that [18 U.S.C. § 1341] does not support any private right of action."). The cause of action for mail fraud [*6] under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 is dismissed.

In addition, the Complaint can be read as asserting a claim for common law fraud. To maintain a claim for common law fraud, a plaintiff must be able to show a causative link between the alleged fraud and his claimed damages. See, e.g., Friedman v. Anderson, 803 N.Y.S.2d 514, 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (granting a motion to dismiss a fraud claim for failure to demonstrate that defendants' actions were the proximate cause of the claimed losses). With regard to fraud arising from the mailed invoices, the March 20, 2006, Memorandum Opinion denying the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint stated that the Plaintiffs "will be unable to demonstrate that Defendant's mailing of fraudulent invoices was the proximate cause of their alleged injuries." Kirk v. Heppt, 423 F. Supp. 2d at 151.

The Plaintiffs' second cause of action alleges a scheme to defraud, in violation of New York Penal Law § 190.60. The New York State Legislature modeled the "scheme to defraud" crime on the federal mail fraud statute. People v. First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 608, 616 (1995); William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.60 (McKinney 1998) ("Given [*7] parallel language in the two statutes, New York courts have found federal cases construing the mail fraud statute relevant to the construction of New York's 'scheme to defraud.'"). Because neither the New York State legislature nor any New York court has interpreted § 190.60 as providing a private cause of action, the claim based on the N.Y. Penal Law § 190.60 is dismissed.

The NY General Business Law § 349 Cause of Action is Dismissed

New York General Business Law § 349 applies solely to matters affecting the consumer public at large. Vitolo v. Mentor H/S. Inc., 213 Fed. Appx. 16, 17 (2d Cir. 2007). Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, are not covered by the statute. Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 24-25 (1995). See also Amadasu v. Ngati, et al., No. 05 Civ. 2585 (JFB), 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19654, at *35-36 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006) (dismissing a Section 349 claim arising out of an attorney-client relationship for failure to state a consumer protection claim) (citing, inter alia, Exxonmobil Inter-America, Inc. v. Advanced Info. Eng'g Servs., Inc., 328 F. Supp. 2d 443, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).

The Complaint here is limited [*8] to a dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant arising out of the attorney-client relationship, which is essentially contractual in nature. The broader impact on consumers at large is not adequately alleged. For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs' claim based on New York (General Business Law § 349 is dismissed as a matter of law.

The Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Dismissed in Part

Although the Kirks have not explicitly asserted a cause of action for legal malpractice, under New York law, claims for legal malpractice and claims for breach of fiduciary duty in the context of attorney liability are coextensive. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 780 N.Y.S.2d 593, 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004); see also Nordwind v. Rowland No. 04 Civ. 9725 (AJP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75764, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2007) (citations omitted); Guiles v. Simser, 826 N.Y.S.2d 484, 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (treating Plaintiff's cause of action, although labeled as a breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim of legal malpractice). To the extent that the Kirks' claim for breach of fiduciary duty is based upon Heppt's handling of Daniel's case against his former [*9] employer before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, see Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., No. 03 Civ. 8688 (SHS), 2004 WL 1933584 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2004), their claim will be treated as a claim for legal malpractice.

A cause of action for legal malpractice poses a question of law which can be determined on a motion to dismiss. Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 337 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Rosner v. Paley, 65 N.Y.2d 736, 738 (1985)) (quotation marks omitted). In order to state a claim for legal malpractice under New York law, a plaintiff must adequately allege 1) an attorney-client relationship, and 2) attorney negligence, 3) which is the proximate cause of, 4) actual damages. Nordwind, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75764, at *22; see also Pellegrino v. File, 738 N.Y.S.2d 320, 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), lv denied, 98 N.Y.2d 606. Insofar as the Kirks are seeking damages for the value of the claim lost, they must establish the elements of proximate cause and actual damages by "demonstrat[ing] that 'but for' the attorney's conduct the client would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages." Trautenberg v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, [*10] Wharton & Garrison, LLP, No. 06 Civ. 14211 (GBD), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56222, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2007) (citing Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, 780 N.Y.S.2d at 596). "Notwithstanding counsel's purported negligence, the client must demonstrate his or her own likelihood of success; absent such a showing, counsel's conduct is not the proximate cause of the injury. Nor may speculative damages or conclusory claims of damage be a basis for legal malpractice." Russo v. Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, LLP, 301 A.D.2d 63, 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (citing Pellegrino, 738 N.Y.S.2d 320,). See also Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP v. IBuyDigital.com, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 50149U, at 6 (N.Y. Misc. 2007).

In order to establish negligence in a legal malpractice case, a plaintiff must allege that the attorney's conduct "'fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the profession.'" Achtman, 464 F.3d at 337 (quoting Grago v. Robertson, 370 N.Y.S.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)). While "an attorney may be held liable for 'ignorance of the rules of practice, failure to comply with conditions precedent to suit, or for his neglect to prosecute [*11] or defend an action," Achtman, 464 F.3d at 337 (quoting Bernstein v. Oppenheim & Co., 554 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)), "[a] complaint that essentially alleges either 'an error in judgment' or a 'selection of one among several reasonable courses of action' fails to state a claim for malpractice," id. (quoting Rosner, 65 N.Y.2d at 738).

Construing the complaint liberally in Plaintiffs' favor, the Kirks' allegations regarding Heppt's failure to thoroughly investigate Daniel's ERISA plan and exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing suit may constitute negligence However, the Kirks have not sufficiently alleged proximate cause to withstand a motion to dismiss. Therefore, their claim for fiduciary duty with regard to these allegations is dismissed, with leave granted to replead. "

Here is the hypothetical:  Plaintiff hires attorney A to prosecute an action against the State of New York, and does not timely file a notice of claim.  There is still time within the statute of limitations to file a motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. 

Plaintiff hires attorney B to sue for legal malpractice. Is Attorney B required to try to mitigate by seeking leave?  If Attorney B does not, is he subject to third-party litigation?

The case of Eugene Cacho, v.The Law Offices of Louis Venezia and Louis Venezia,
102554/2006 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, RICHMOND COUNTY ,2008 NY Slip Op 50111U;  says no.  Justice McMahon writes:

"With respect to the motion at hand, generally, where a law firm is retained for the limited and express purpose of representing a client in a legal malpractice action, they do not have a duty to prosecute the underlying claim, if one still lies (see Northrop v. Thorsen, AD3d , 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12903 [2d Dept., Dec. 18, 2007][finding that an attorney retained "in a separate matter, before a separate tribunal, and for a different purpose" does not require him to mitigate damages in the underlying claims); Johnson v. Berger, 193 AD2d 784, 786, 598 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2d Dept., 1993][holding that a law firm's failure to preserve an estate's assets, when retained for the limited purpose of prosecuting a legal malpractice action "did not contribute to or aggravate the plaintiffs' damages arising from the former attorneys' alleged legal malpractice"]).

Here, third-party defendant's have established entitlement to judgment in accordance with CPLR § 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7). The retainer [**4] agreement is clear and specific, detailing that the representation by the third-party defendants is for "damages arising from personal injuries sustained by Eugene Cacho as a result of legal malpractice." Further, the cases cited by the defendant/third-party plaintiff's are distinguishable from the instant matter in that here, the third-party defendant Minchew was not hired as successor counsel to prosecute the personal injury claim, but rather on a different matter, in front of a different Judge and for a different purpose (Northrop v. Thorsen, AD3d , 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12903 [2d Dept., Dec. 18, 2007]). As a result, defendant Minchew is under no obligation to file a late notice of claim and therefore, dismissal of the third-party complaint is warranted (see CPLR § 3211 [a][1], [a][7]; Northrop v. Thorsen, AD3d , 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12903 [2d Dept., Dec 18, 2007]; Johnson v. Berger, 193 AD2d at 786). "

Wrangles between lawyers is certainly no headline.  Lawyers allowing venom to overpower reason similarly is no news.  The case of Minchew, Santner & Brenner, LLP, and Jamie M. Minchew, v. John H. Somoza, Eleftherios Kravaris, Melito & Anderson, P.C., Westport Insurance Corporation and Louis Venezia, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, RICHMOND COUNTY ,2008 NY Slip Op 50112U; January 17, 2008, is a prime example of failure to mitigate damages.

This case is an offshoot of another legal malpractice case.  Plaintiff hired Venezia to prosecute an action in the Court of Claims.  It is alleged that Venezia did not file the notice of claim timely.  His insurance defense attorneys asked plaintiff to file a motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim, which was not done. 

When plaintiff would not try to mitigate his damages by moving for leave to file a late notice of claim, Venezia third-partied plaintiff's attorneys on the theory that they could have mitigated, but did not.  The Minchew firm [plaintiff's attorneys] then brought this retaliatory suit.  The court wrote:

"This action arises from an underlying legal malpractice 1 action currently pending before this Court, where Mr. Eugene Cacho's initial attorney, Louis Venezia, failed to timely file a notice of claim with the State of New York. As a result, Mr. Cacho severed his representation and hired the plaintiff Minchew Santner & Brenner LLP (hereinafter "Minchew"), and Jamie M. Minchew, personally, to represent him in a legal malpractice action against The Law Office of Louis Venezia (hereinafter Venezia). Venezia thereafter hired the defendants John H. Somoza, Eleftherios Kravaris, Melito & Anderson, P.C., (hereinafter collectively known as "Somoza"), to represent him in that matter. In the course of his representation, defendant Somoza requested that plaintiff [**2] Minchew apply to file a late notice of claim considering that the statute of limitations has not yet expired in the personal injury action, in effect, severely mitigating the damages and/or resolving the case. After this Court repeatedly recommended that the parties in this action cooperate and apply to file a late notice of claim, the defendants impleaded plaintiffs as a third party in the Cacho action which thereafter caused Minchew to bring this retaliatory action alleging the aforementioned causes of action. " 

When no one would play nice, the court wrote:  "As a result, all causes of action alleged by the plaintiff in their complaint are dismissed. All other requested relief is denied or academic. Finally, this Court will again strongly urge the attorneys involved in these matters to cooperate and set aside these vindictive and unnecessary actions in an effort to resolve [**9] this case. "

Question:  who is hurt when attorneys play like this?

The West Virginia Record reports this case in which plaintiff was terminated by his employer.  Plaintiff's claim is that he was fired for doing jury service.  He retained defendant attorney, and the case was litigated in Federal District Court, where it was dismissed on summary judgment. 

Plaintiff claims that the attorney did not depose supporting witnesses, did not follow up on deposition questions, and did not seek discovery.  Worst of all he claims that the attorney came to meeting intoxicated.

"Fleischmann says Deel accompanied him to several depositions throughout 2005 and 2006, but that he "failed to follow up on any deposition questions, and he failed (to) make contact or get depositions from any of the seven witnesses provided to him by me."

He says he also gave Deel physical and date documentation supporting his case, but Deel "appeared at both meetings apparently intoxicated, and failed to retain the information I tried to provide."

Fleischmann says he e-mailed the information to Deel, but he failed to act on it. And Deel failed to respond to numerous e-mail and phone requests for an update on the case, the complaint states.

On Dec. 1, 2005, PRG-Schultz filed a motion for summary judgment. Deel failed to respond, according to the complaint, and the case was dismissed Jan. 10, 2006.

Fleischmann says he learned on Feb. 8, 2006, that he and Deel had 24 hours to filed for reinstatement of the case. Fleischmann said he contacted Deel, who said he "was busy" and wouldn't do anything about it."

Here is our article from the New York Law Journal on Attorney Client Privilege and Legal Malpractice.

CEO Gregory Reyes was sentenced this week.  Judge Charles Breyer told him that a false affidavit netted him 21 months rather than 15 months.  Here's the problem for Reyes:  his attorney drafted the document, and admitted his own "poor drafting."

So, is this the rare occurrence when an attorney creates the situation in which his client spends more tim in jail? "Inexact drafting by lawyers for former Brocade CEO Gregory Reyes may have gotten an extra six months tacked onto his stock option backdating sentence.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sentenced the former Silicon Valley icon to 21 months in prison Wednesday. Breyer also imposed a $15 million fine, but did not order Reyes to pay any restitution. Breyer stayed the entire sentence pending appeal.

Breyer indicated, however, he would have imposed a shorter, 15-month sentence had Reyes not submitted a sworn affidavit to the court saying he did not backdate.

Reyes filed that declaration in support of former HR Chief Stephanie Jensen's motion to sever her trial from his. At Reyes' trial, though, his lawyers acknowledged that he did backdate stock options, but said it was done in full view of the company's finance department.

On Wednesday, the judge called Reyes' statements in the declaration "seriously misleading" and an obstruction of justice because they suggested Reyes would provide exculpatory evidence for Jensen when, in fact, he could not.

"The court must have truthful information in order for it to be just," Breyer said evenly.

Reyes' attorney, Richard Marmaro, attempted to take the flak for the declaration, telling Breyer he had been the "proponent" of it, along with Jensen's attorney, Keker & Van Nest partner Jan Little.

The language in the declaration was a product of "poor drafting by the lawyers" and was not meant to apply to all of the disputed Brocade stock option grants, said Marmaro, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "

When does the statute of limitations start to run on a legal malpractice case in Pennsylvania.  Hinshwaw reports on this issue.

"The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim begins to run when the malpractice is committed and is only tolled until the plaintiff should reasonably have found out about some degree of injury. The statute is not tolled until all of a plaintiff’s damages are clear or until appellate proceedings in the underlying case within the legal malpractice case are over.

Under the court’s application of the occurrence rule, the trigger for the accrual of a legal malpractice action is not the realization of actual or ultimate loss, but the occurrence of a breach of duty plus some degree of apparent harm. Thus, the court concluded that the statute of limitations for a breach of a contract claim starts when the duty is breached and is only tolled until the plaintiff should reasonably have found out about the injury. Otherwise put, and applying this reasoning to the instant matter, the court found that Wachovia or its predecessor in interest, Meridian, should have reasonably been aware of the alleged breach on or about October 20, 1994, the date Pisani initiated proceedings for liquidated damages (which, of course, had to be defended at considerable cost). Consequently, the present case was time-barred even though no final judgment determining the ultimate and actual loss had been determined before the statute began to run.

In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that its ruling may require an injured client to pursue two legal actions with competing interests at the same time—the appeal of the underlying case and the malpractice claim. The court concluded, however, that the overriding public policy concern is that stale claims not be filed. "

Here is a case from New Jersey which gives a full explanation of "judicial estoppel" and its application to legal malpractice.  Generally, the issue comes up when a client agrees to a settlement, which it later finds to be inadequate.  The legal malpractice case which follows is defended, in part, by the assertion that the client settled the case, said they were satisfied, and now change their mind.

"Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that protects the integrity of the judicial process. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 387 (App. Div. 1996). It "preclud[es] a party from asserting a position in a case that contradicts or is inconsistent with a position previously asserted by the party in the case or a related legal proceeding." Tamburelli Prop. Ass'n v. Borough of Cresskill, 308 N.J. Super. 326, 335 (App. Div. 1998) (citation omitted).

Judicial estoppel does not prevent litigants from pleading alternative positions; rather, it "is designed to prevent litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts." Newell v. Hudson, 376 N.J. Super. 29, 38 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted). "[A] party must successfully assert a position in order to be estopped from asserting a contrary position in future proceedings." Cummings, supra, 295 N.J. Super. at 386. Prior success does not necessarily mean that the party benefited from the position taken, but only that a court allowed them to maintain that position and relied on it to make a judicial determination. Id. at 387.

New Jersey "has a longstanding policy that encourages settlements." Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250, 263 (1992). However, our policy favoring settlements and the doctrine of judicial estoppel only bar a litigant from subsequently disputing the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement where the litigant was fully aware of all of the facts and was reasonably advised as to the legal remedies available based on those facts. Newell, supra, 376 N.J. Super. at 33; Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 437-39 (2005).

The motion judge relied on Newell to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this case. The issue in Newell, was "whether a litigant who either lied, or later claimed she lied, about her understanding and voluntary acceptance of the terms of her property settlement agreement, in order to induce the court to accept and incorporate it into a judgment of divorce, is judicially estopped from asserting a [counter]claim for malpractice against her matrimonial attorney based on the settlement." Newell, supra, 376 N.J. Super. at 30. At the time of the divorce hearing, Hudson represented in court that she understood and voluntarily consented to the terms of the property settlement agreement. Id. at 32. Based upon this testimony, the judge approved the settlement and incorporated the agreement into the judgment of divorce. Ibid.

Thereafter, the wife sought a modification of the alimony amount, claiming that her former husband's salary was misstated in the agreement as a result of her attorney's negligence and, as a consequence, she received an insufficient alimony award. Id. at 32-33. That motion was denied by the Family Part judge. Id. at 33.

Hudson failed to pay the divorce attorney's fee and a collection suit was instituted against Hudson. Ibid. Hudson counterclaimed alleging malpractice. Id. at 33-34. In responding to questions posed at her deposition, Hudson essentially testified that her sworn testimony to the judge hearing the divorce proceeding was false. Id. at 34. The attorneys then filed a motion for summary judgment. Ibid. In dismissing the malpractice action on the basis of judicial estoppel, the motion judge found that the wife was not misled by her attorney because she testified under oath that she knew what she was doing. Id. at 36. The judge also stressed that the wife, who was an accountant, although not tutored in the law, was nevertheless a sophisticated individual who had received sufficient factual information to inform her decision regarding the settlement. Id. at 35-36.

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we noted that the Ziegelheim and Puder

courts recognized legal malpractice as a viable cause of action where a matrimonial attorney's negligent pretrial preparation and advice led to the recommendation of an improper settlement. By declining to apply a per se bar, these cases preserve a malpractice claim of a vulnerable litigant who unknowingly enters into an inadequate settlement, believing it is fair, as a result of the arguable negligence of her matrimonial attorney. 

We agreed that a legal malpractice action was reserved for "vulnerable litigant[s] who unknowingly enter[] into an inadequate settlement, believing it is fair, as a result of the arguable negligence of [their] . . . attorney." Ibid. Further, we adopted the position of the Idaho Supreme Court, stating that judicial estoppel

should only be applied when the party maintaining the inconsistent position did have, or was chargeable with, full knowledge of the attendant facts prior to adopting the initial position. . . . [T]he concept of judicial estoppel takes into account not only what a party states under oath in open court, but also what that party knew, or should have known, at the time the original position was adopted. [Ibid. (quoting McKay v. Owens, 937 P.2d 1222 (1997)).]

Failure to diagnose breast cancer...it's a horrible thing.  When we think of a family member who could have been saved, who dies because of medical negligence, where a simple mammogram or simply reading it correctly could have made a difference...

Here, after a death, the medical malpractice case was bungled, and a legal malpractice case finally led to a verdict against the attorney who didn't sue the doctor.

"A Hinds County jury returned a $375,000 judgment Tuesday in a legal malpractice case.
Varnado and attorney Robin Blair, also of Hattiesburg, represented the sister