Everyone knows that oil drilling is a cutthroat buisness. Here is an interesting story.  Did the law firm capitilize on inside knoweldge?  Plaintiff’s story is that it is in the niche business of developing old oil wells, and was in the process of buying from another business in bankruptcy.  They had to hire a W.Va. law firm to complete the transaction.  They charge that the law firm simply saw an opportunity, set up a rival purchaser, dragged their feet and inserted the rival into the deal.

"Between May 25 and June 2, Hinkle says it learned that Elk River Energy was formed only two weeks before the May 25 meeting and that Dollison, a partner at Bowles Rice, "was not only the organizing attorney," but "he also had a financial stake in Elk River Energy."

Had Hinkle known of what it called this "absolutely inexcusable conflict of interest," it never would have retained Bowles Rice nor would it have disclosed confidential and proprietary information consisting of the terms of the agreement with Buffalo.

On June 2, 2006, Chincheck informed Hinkle – "in a transparent attempt to excuse her culpability," according to the complaint – that she would no longer being representing the company.

Three days later — through current counsel Hugo N. Gerstl of Monterey, Calif. – spoke with Buffalo’s bankruptcy trustee, who said Elk River was trying to back out of its contract with Buffalo and trying to dissolve. Meanwhile, the trustee also moved to sell the subject property in bankruptcy court. The "Objection or Upset Bid" date was set for June 14, 2006. "

New York Lawyer reports: "Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman is one step closer to being forced to return about $4 million to a former client.   These bankruptcy legal malpractice cases are becoming more and more frequent.

The Chapter 11 trustee for SonicBlue Inc. filed a statement on Tuesday supporting a November motion, filed by SonicBlue, asking Pillsbury to pay back the fees.

Tuesday’s statement took the motion even further. In it, Trustee Dennis J. Connolly suggested that the judge hold off on setting an amount so that other issues such as interest or even potential damages could be considered. "

Anthony Lin of the NYLJ today reports a recent decision of Justice Edmead of Supreme Court, New York County. It is either an appalling story of gender bias and all around smarmy behavior or some simple transcriptional errors.  Was it "hon" or "hun."  Calling the adversary Attilla the Hun [as the attorney claimed] might even be good.  Here is the story:

"A New York judge has ordered court supervision of a lawyer for "objectionable conduct" toward a female opposing counsel who he said had a "cute little thing going on" during a deposition.

According to transcripts of the deposition, Thomas B. Decea of Danzig Fishman & Decea in White Plains also called Michelle A. Rice of Arkin Kaplan & Rice "hon" and "girl" and asked her why she was not wearing a wedding ring. The judge said Mr. Decea’s behavior reflected gender bias as well as "a lack of civility, good manners and common courtesy." She said the appointment of a referee was a means of "guarding against future objectionable conduct" by Mr. Decea.

But Mr. Decea yesterday denied acting inappropriately. He vowed to appeal Justice Edmead’s decision and said many of his comments were wrongly transcribed or taken out of context. He also accused the judge of violating his right to due process by not providing him with copies of the deposition transcripts on which she based her order.

The underlying case is a legal malpractice suit filed by a hedge fund against its former law firm. Mr. Decea, 48, was the lawyer for hedge fund Laddcap Value and its manager, Robert B. Ladd; Ms. Rice, 46, was representing the fund’s former firm, Lowenstein Sandler of Roseland, N.J. This is not a white collar interview that you’re sitting here interviewing something with your cute little thing going on," Mr. Decea said, according to the transcript, later telling her it was "nothing personal, dear."

After Ms. Rice told Mr. Decea she thought his comments were indeed personal and offensive, he said: "Your skin is getting thin now."

At another point in the deposition, Mr. Decea referred to Ms. Rice as "hon." After she questioned his use of the term, Mr. Ladd jumped in to suggest that Mr. Decea had meant Hun "[a]s in Attila" and that the remark was not personal.

"As in Attila? I don’t even understand that," Ms. Rice replied.

Later in the deposition, Mr. Decea questioned Ms. Rice’s ability to try the case.

"You better get somebody else here to try this case, otherwise you’re going to be one sorry girl," he said. "

This case is instructive on several levels.  First, it is one of a coming wave of lgal malpractice cases against defense attorneys in civil litigation.  Second, it demonstrates the NJ "net opinion" rule, in which an expert must give more than a "personal opinion."  The expert must give a standard of care, and must reference stautues, cases and events in the case.  CARBIS SALES, INC., d/b/a
CARBIS LADDERS, and SAFE STEP REINSURANCE, INC., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. ISRAEL N. EISENBERG, ESQ., and POST & SCHELL, P.C., formerly known as THE LAW OFFICES OF
STANLEY P. STAHL,

This opinion vindicates Prof. Bennet Wasserman, the expert.  He also happens to be a practitioner in NJ legal malpractice cases.  Finally, the case illustrates both how badly the defense attorney bungled the matter [a big product liability case which should have been won by defense ends in a $ 1 million verdict, and then afterwards, how badly the defense of the legal malpractice matter foundered.  They were late in making motions, and late in asking for discovery.

"In this legal malpractice action, defendants Israel N. Eisenberg and his former law firm, Post & Schell, P.C., appeal from a final judgment awarding their former clients, plaintiffs Carbis Sales, Inc. (Carbis or plaintiff) and Safe Step Reinsurance, Inc. (Safe Step) $704,405.20 in damages. On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court erred in admitting the net opinion of plaintiffs’ expert and in refusing them discovery of a memo prepared by an investigator retained by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying them a new trial on damages or additur."

1. Duffy-Duncan v. Berns & Castro,2007 NY Slip Op 9493, 1st Dept, 11/29/07

Summary judgment denied and affirmed. Attorney had failed to serve a notice of claim on a Transit Authority ice patch slip and fall. Summary judgment denied for failure to demonstrate that the TA had a lack of notice of defense or a storm in progress defense. This case is notable for the Appellate Division not taking the defenses at face value.

2. Asher v. Shimbaum, 2007 Slip Op 9351, 2d Dept, 11/27/07

Plaintiff’s underlying action was commenced to enforce an oral contract between brother and sister to convey real property. Legal malpractice case is dismissed on the inability to prove the “but for” case: that plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying action.

3. 3-Mar Service Center, Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 2007 Slip Op 9363, 2d Dept, 2007

Motion to dismiss granted in Supreme Court but reversed in Appellate Division. The decision does not give facts, but this was a successive [or even a third] motion to dismiss, after an earlier appeal.

4. Olaiya v. Golden, 2007 Slip Op 9377, 2d Dept, 2007

Plaintiff loses his job at the NYC Department of Juvenile Justice, but cannot demonstrate that the attorney’s conduct was the proximate cause of his job loss.

William Gwire, a San Francisco Attorney writes in Law.Com about some of his legal malpractice cases in this article.

"The landscape for litigating attorneys has changed dramatically over the 33 years that I’ve been in practice. Cases are more complex, stakes are higher, and competition is more intense. Judges and opposing counsel are less accommodating and the rules and procedures that line the litigation process like a gauntlet are more complicated than ever. Clients, big and small, are also more demanding and more willing to seek redress for mistakes they perceive their attorneys have made.

But the nature of malpractice claims has also changed, with differences that often depend on the size of the firm. Interestingly, big firms and small firms, including solo practitioners, make different kinds of mistakes. While there are many types of errors that can lead to malpractice claims, this article focuses on just a few that I’ve seen emerging.

LARGE-FIRM MISTAKES

Complex and high-stakes litigation has placed a premium on experienced litigators, resulting in increased demand for large-firm partners with marquee names. Nothing draws in business and clients with litigation matters like a reputation for success in the courtroom. But because partners with star-power litigation credentials are in such demand, they run the risk of taking on too much work and stretching themselves too thin when it comes to handling their caseloads.

SMALL-FIRM MISTAKES

While small law firms make mistakes that usually don’t add up to dollar damages as big as the ones made by larger firms, the resulting damage to both the client and the small firm or solo practitioner can be much more devastating. That is because the firm’s client — whether an individual or a small business — may be financially unable to withstand a bad result, and the damages arising out of the malpractice may exceed the firm’s insurance coverage (assuming there is any), exposing the individual partner or partners to personal liability.

While mistakes in small firms can occur in a lot of ways, there is one in particular that appears to be more prevalent today. Surprisingly, it is not the classic missed-statute type of malpractice, although that certainly still happens. The advent of sophisticated and inexpensive computerized calendaring programs seems to have eliminated many of those types of errors.

Rather, I’ve noticed that small firms and solo practitioners are often taking on work that they don’t know how to handle. Unlike the situation at large firms, where experienced lawyers run the risk of stretching themselves too thin, the problem with small offices is lack of experience in a particular field. The law has become so complex and fields of practice so specialized that a solo practitioner or small firm simply can’t do it all or even some of it. I am both amused and shocked when I see Web sites by solo practitioners or small firms that announce their specialties in family law, personal injury, probate, criminal law, intellectual property, real estate, construction litigation, securities, immigration and medical malpractice. You think I’m kidding? Spend an hour surfing the Internet for lawyers and you’ll understand what I’m talking about. "

Here is a case from the Madison St.Claire Record, detailing a legal malpractice case arising from claims in a Worker’s Compensation matter. "Frank Krausz filed a legal malpractice suit against Ann Dalton and Hammond, Shinners, Turcotte, Larrew & Young in Madison County Circuit Court Nov. 27, alleging they botched his workers’ compensation claim.

According to Krausz, he was employed by Lanter Company and was injured at work on Aug. 21, 2001. He sustained injuries to his neck and shoulder while trying to close a jammed trailer door.

He claims that on Nov. 30, 2001, he retained the defendants by a written contract to represent his claim against Lanter.

Krausz claims the defendants filed an application for benefits with the Illinois Industrial Commission on March 12, 2002, and because of their actions his claim was denied.

Krausz claims the defendants negligently allowed his claim to get above the "red line" and be dismissed for want of prosecution, failed to make a timely application to reinstate the case after learning of the dismissal and failed to notify him of their actions until a year went by and his case was permanently barred. "

DLA Piper is Biglaw to the N th degree.  Here is a story about this international law firm’s international legal malpractice case.  "DLA Piper is facing a negligence claim from a property consultancy company relating to advice it gave to Northern Rock on fraudulent property transactions.

The claim, brought by property company Gerald Eve last month (25 October), seeks a contribution to the £1.6m settlement the company paid to Northern Rock over alleged negligence by both DLA Piper and Gerald Eve on three property transactions.

The original claim pursued by Northern Rock against the company and firm was for negligent advice which failed to prevent an alleged fraud by a third party in property deals where the bank advanced a total of £6.75m for 15 flats in Paddington.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Northern Rock claimed it suffered a loss of £2.1m.

Gerald Eve settled Northern Rock’s claim against it in September for £1.6m. However, DLA Piper failed to put forward anything towards it, causing the property surveyors to lodge a claim against the firm for a contribution towards the settlement fee.

Mayer Brown professional indemnity partner Jim Oulton is advising Gerald Eve, while Barlow Lyde & Gilbert has been instructed to represent DLA Piper "