Two things cought our eye in this blog blurb from the West Virginia Business Litigation Blog.  The first is that one can watch a webcast of appellate proceedings in W.Va.  and the second is that this legal malpractice case is about a petition for appeal [similar to a cert request??] which is alleged to have been muddled for the attorney’s benefit. 

"According to the article by Gazette reporter Paul J. Nyden, Massey and two related entities have sued Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP of Lexington, Kentucky and McGuire Woods LLP of Richmond, Virginia for their alleged malpractice in representing Massey in a Virginia lawsuit filed by Hugh Caperton and his companies. In 2001, a Virginia jury awarded the plaintiffs $6 million. The Virginia Supreme Court refused Massey’s appeal because it was filed by a lawyer from Kentucky who wasn’t admitted to practice in Virginia. Massey ended up paying Caperton $7.2 million, including $1.2 million in pre-judgment interest. Here is Massey’s complaint, which was filed on July 13, 2007 in the Circuit Court of Fayette County (Lexington), Kentucky.

Massey alleged claims for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty/conflict of interest, and claimed that the defendants failed to have a lawyer admitted to practice in Virginia sign the notice of appeal, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal by the Virginia Supreme Court. Further, Massey alleged that the defendants changed language in its petition for appeal without Massey’s knowledge and for the purpose of making a legal malpractice claim more difficult to assert. Specifically, Massey alleged that the petition in draft form asked that the Supreme Court “reverse and remand” the verdict and “reverse and render final judgment.” But in the final version, only the “reverse and remand” language was included.

According to the complaint, if the defendants had properly filed the notice of appeal and not changed the language in the petition for appeal, “the Virginia Supreme Court would have reversed the judgment of the trial court due to its erroneous rulings at trial and entered final judgment in Wellmore’s [one of the plaintiffs] favor.” "