PROTOSTORM, LLC and PETER FAULISI, Plaintiffs, -against- ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP, DALE HOGUE, FREDERICK D. BAILEY, CARL I. BRUNDIDGE, and ALAN SCHIAVELLI, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, -against- KATHY WORTHINGTON, Third-Party Defendant/Cross-Claimant, -against- DUVAL & STACHENFELD LLP and JOHN J. GINLEY, III, Third-Party Defendants/Cross-Defendants is the story of attorneys taking on work, and then blithly going about their day, placing payment of bills before working for the client. 
 

Plaintiffs had what they believed to be a very valuable invention, and hired a series of attorneys to file and follow up on the patents.  The process ended in failure.  "Plaintiff Peter Faulisi ("Faulisi") along with non-party Courtland Shakespeare ("Shakespeare") wanted to market and patent an invention they believed would be very valuable through their company Protostorm.com, LLC ("Protostorm").2 They enlisted the help of several lawyers—the Defendants and Third-Party Defendants. As a result of some combination of negligence and miscommunication the patent application was abandoned. Plaintiffs, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction, bring claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty."

This 25 page opinion is well worth reading, if only for the description of cavalier behavior, refusal to do work until the last bill is paid, and a general sense of entitlement that wafts from the page.  It ends:

"For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ breach [*57] of fiduciary duty claim but DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ malpractice claim. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to certain elements of its malpractice claim is GRANTED, as set forth above. Third-Party Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to Third-Party Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims, but DENIED as to Third-Party Plaintiffs’ contribution claims. Similarly, D&S’s and Ginley’s motion for summary judgment as to Worthington’s indemnification claims are GRANTED, but summary judgment is DENIED as to Worthington’s contribution claim. In sum, malpractice claims against the Defendants and Third-Party Defendants, in connection with the abandonment of Plaintiffs’ patent application, shall go forward."