Here is a legal malpractice case in which it is alleged that defendant attorney spoke with the upcoming judge at at coctail party, and was told that the judge would let plaintiff have only 5 days of trial. As a result, it is alleged that plaintiff settled the case rather than try it in so short a period?
Unthinkable? "Four years after Cox Smith Matthews settled a suit on behalf of plaintiff Total Clean LLC for $4.5 million, the firm is defending itself in a case brought by its former client. Total Clean, a family business established to operate a truck wash, has sued the San Antonio-based firm and one of its shareholders in Bexar County, Texas’ 37th District Court. At a mediation held five days before the trial, McElhaney allegedly told Nami family members "that they had to settle the case because they could not effectively go to trial with the five-day trial limitation," according to the petition. "Believing McElhaney that the federal judge would permit Total Clean to put on only a small part of its case, and therefore essentially prevent it from effectively putting on its case, the family agreed to settle. … "
"We are alleging that the lawyer [McElhaney] told the client that the judge said he would only permit a very short trial and that is why [the client] settled," says Smoot. "My client is adamant. He [Bobby Nami] would not have settled except for the fact that he was told he would only have a five-day trial."
If you think that this is a unique case, take a look at Totura v. Sullivan Papain Block now before the AD2, AD No. 2006-3886 fully briefed. The allegation there is that the attorney told his client the judge spoke at a bar meeting and told him to settle or face dismissal at trial.