Clients often believe that their attorney was "bought off" and sometimes stretch the facts to fit a conspiracy theory.  Most of the time there is simply no institutional way that "buying off" could even have happened.  Sometimes we are non-plussed at the actions of attorneys.  We wonder, in this case, why the attorney didn’t tell the client that the buyer of real property had not sent a certified check, as per the contract, and why the attorney did not tell the client that the check was refused for insufficient funds.  What can their explanation be?

In Bilin v Segal, Goodman & Goodman, LLP ; 2011 NY Slip Op 00995 ; Decided on February 8, 2011 ; Appellate Division, Second Department  the court writes:
 

"The plaintiffs retained the defendant Segal, Goodman & Goodman, LLP, and one of its principals, the defendant Frank Goodman (hereinafter together the law firm), to represent them and three other individuals in the sale of six adjacent properties in Brooklyn to a real estate developer, the defendant Criterion Group, LLC (hereinafter Criterion). Each of the six contracts provided that the purchase price of each property was $1,250,000, of which a $62,500 down payment for each property was payable upon execution of the contract, with the $1,187,500 balance for each property due at closing. Although the contracts were executed in early June 2004, the plaintiffs contend that unbeknownst to them, Criterion did not authorize the law firm to deposit its uncertified check in the sum of $375,000, representing the collective down payment for all six properties, until sometime in July 2004. The plaintiffs further assert that the law firm did not inform them for at least two months that when the law firm deposited Criterion’s check in July 2004, it was returned for insufficient funds, and thereafter, Criterion never followed through on its promise to the law firm to provide it with a certified replacement check for the down payment."

"According to the plaintiffs, during this time period, with the law firm’s assistance, they pursued proceedings to ensure that tenants vacated their respective properties, as required under the contracts of sale executed between them and Criterion, and lost an opportunity to sell the properties to another developer at essentially the same purchase price offered by Criterion. They further contend that since Criterion never remitted a down payment, they were unable to retain such funds as liquidated damages when the sale of the properties to Criterion was never completed. The properties were ultimately sold to a third party, but in the interim, the plaintiffs contend that they were unable to rent the properties. "
 

"Here, contrary to the assertion of the law firm, it failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Greene v Sager, 78 AD3d 777; Eisenberger v Septimus, 44 AD3d 994). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the law firm’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. "