Client hires attorney.  Attorney works on case, very hard, and does a good job?  Other problems arise, such as criminal investigations of client.  Client drops case.  Attorney loses contingent fee.  Can attorney sue client for lost fee?  Here, the case says NO !.

"In a short opinion, the Court rejects the plaintiff law firm’s effort to create a new rule of client liability. The Court explains that the law firm’s legal theory would distort the complex calculus about whether to pursue litigation and “mock[] the idea of client control.” In the instant case, it’s no surprise that the client decided not to pursue civil litigation in the face of multiple criminal investigations and fraud claims, and the client acted within its rights by opting to concentrate its resources and energy on these more serious legal issues. Although the result is “admittedly harsh” to those lawyers who toil away with the expectation of a windfall contingency, that’s just the nature of the game. "

Continue Reading A Turnabout: Client Malpractice?

Here is the well known blogger, Day on Torts, writing about legal malpractice causation and proximity.  Another way to put this [in a sports metaphor] "no harm, no foul."

"Causation in Legal Malpractice Cases
Negligence without causation is like a biscuit without country ham (or blackberry jam).

An attorney who admittedly commits legal malpractice, in a Michigan case, has his discipline upgrated.  The story:

"An Adrian attorney who admitted mishandling a client’s civil case was slapped with a 30-day suspension for failing to cooperate with a Michigan Bar Association investigation of a complaint filed by the client.

Under an order issued Sept. 11 by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, John D. Baker was suspended from practicing law from Wednesday through Nov. 9. The panel’s opinion pointed out that Baker made efforts to correct his error in failing to file a lawsuit in a traffic accident injury case, including a payment of his own funds to the client along with obtaining a $6,000 insurance settlement.

The mishandling of the case warranted only a reprimand, but the Attorney Discipline Board raised the punishment to a suspension “based upon respondent’s complete failure to cooperate with the grievance administrator’s investigation,” the panel’s opinion stated. "

For us, [possible] corruption in land deals in California always brings the memory of Chinatown.  Here is a story of a limestone mine whose proceeds were to fund a retirement account for former Kaiser Steel retirees.  The mine was vauled at more than $100 milliion, yet was sold by the trustees for $ 3.5 million.  Litigagion followed.  the details:

"Parts of a limestone mine meant to secure the futures of Kaiser Steel retirees appear to have been sold off for a fraction of their market value.

The Cushenbury Mine, which supplies the essential component of concrete to the booming construction trade, is thought to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But a parcel expected to produce 80 million tons of high-quality limestone estimated to be worth more than $100 million allegedly was sold to Mitsubishi Cement Corp. in December 2000 for $3.15 million.

Three other parcels were sold to Mitsubishi Cement and another mining company, Specialty Mineral Inc., for a fraction of their value in 2001 and 2003, a lawsuit filed on behalf of the retirees on Sept. 30 alleges. "

In the suit against the two mining companies that bought the land, Redlands law firm Welebir & McCune also sues San Bernardino law firm Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden.

It accuses two of the firm’s lawyers, M. William Tilden and Robert W. Ritter Jr., of legal malpractice, fraud and conflict of interest because their firm allegedly represented both the trust and Mitsubishi Cement in negotiating the land sale.

The firm’s legal counsel was unavailable for comment Friday, Gresham Savage spokesman Mark Ostoich said. "

Attorney sues for fees, and the reflex reaction is to couter-punch, or as it is put in pleadings, counter-claim.  No harm in defending oneself?  This NJ case illustrates the dangers.

CUYLER BURK, LLP, Plaintiff-Respondent,   vs. ROBERT M. SILVERMAN, ESQ., Defendant-Appellant. Argued: September 10, 2007 – Decided October 9, 2007: Before Judges Cuff, Lisa and Lihotz.  On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-135-03.

 "On January 13, 2003, Cuyler Burk filed a complaint to collect the fees incurred by defendant in the amount of $18,747.94. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a counterclaim in which he asserted a legal malpractice claim against plaintiff. On August 19, 2003, Cuyler Burk notified defendant’s attorney that it considered the counterclaim frivolous and that it would move for sanctions.

On August 20, 2004, two months after the deposition of his expert, defendant dismissed the counterclaim. Following the submission of a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and Rule 1:4-8.

In a written opinion filed on December 22, 2005, Judge Harper held that the legal malpractice counterclaim was frivolous. The judge held that Cuyler Burk was a prevailing party because defendant withdrew his complaint after defendant’s expert changed his opinion during his deposition. In other words, "the withdrawal of the complaint was done to avoid anticipated defeat, and as such, it is not a voluntary dismissal, but instead an acknowledgement that the Plaintiff would prevail."

Judge Harper also found that the counterclaim was commenced in bad faith. He found that the evidence was undisputed that Cuyler Burk had made attempts to resolve the case on defendant’s behalf and that he dragged his feet frustrating the firm’s effort to expeditiously and favorably resolve the case. He characterized the counterclaim as a tactic to frustrate the firm’s ability to collect the fees owed to it by defendant. Judge Harper also found that defendant knew or should have known that the counterclaim was "without any reasonable basis in law." Furthermore, the judge found that defendant’s contention that plaintiff recommended that he not settle the disciplinary matter is "patently untrue." The judge also found that the affidavit of merit submitted by one attorney and the expert report submitted by another were founded on inadequate and incomplete facts.

Once Judge Harper ruled that Cuyler Burk was entitled to an award of fees and costs, it submitted an affidavit of services in which it sought fees and costs in excess of $105,000. On April 24, 2006, Judge Harper conducted a plenary hearing on the fee request at which Cuyler testified in support of the firm’s application ."

We read a blog blurb from Eric Turkowitz at his New York Personal Injury Blog which caught our eye and interest.  He discusses a unique warning letter by the Dozier internet Law firm, and the  potential legal malpractice consequences.

"Some lawyer at an outfit calling itself Dozier Internet Law sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of one of its clients, along with this threat:

Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and you are not authorized to republish this in any matter. Use of this letter in a posting, in full or in part, will subject you to further legal causes of action.
Right. So Public Citizen, after publishing the entire letter on its website, tossed down the gauntlet on behalf of their client with this repsonse:

By this letter, we are inviting you to test the validity of your theory that the writer of a cease and desist letter can avoid public scrutiny by threatening to file a copyright law suit if his letter is disclosed publicly on the internet.
The writer of the original letter, Donald Morris, seems to have clearly done his client a grave disservice with this stupidity. (I mentioned this the other day in my personal injury law round-up, but thought this chuckleheaded conduct needed its own post.)

 Perhaps his threats have succeeded before, but the result is that the letter, and the claims against his client, are now being re-broadcast across the internet."can only think of two reasons for Dozier to publish such a letter on their site: The first is sheer folly, since it draws yet more attention to the charges against the company they wish to defend.

The second is more troublesome. Is Dozier simply trying to create more controversy, and thus more links to their website and hopefully more business? That will surely be one result of publishing a letter to Public Citizen on their website instead of reaching out to them privately. But this would also raise very troubling issues regarding attorney ethics and legal malpractice since this is seems to me clearly detrimental to their client. I prefer the first explanation — that it is sheer folly and not an ethical breach — though a savvy Internet based business must surely anticipate the repercussions to their client of additional commentary on the subject.

There is a certain pressure to try to catalogue the vast world of legal malpractice.  Certainly, the court cases, the news releases about law firms being sued are all fodder…but this story stretches the envelope, no?

"Centerfolds Inc. began operating under an adult-entertainment license in 1995, according to Katherine Schubert-Knapp with the city’s Executive Administration Department. In so doing, its owner, Mark Overton, snagged one of only five adult-cabaret licenses allowed under a moratorium the city maintained for more than 18 years, before U.S. District Judge James Robart struck it down in September 2005, finding "that the City’s current licensing scheme is unconstitutional." (The moratorium wasn’t formally lifted until last June.)

That 2004 warrant is significant for Overton because, two years earlier, he dissolved Centerfolds as a corporation and obtained a new license as a sole proprietor. Under that designation, Overton is personally responsible for any debts incurred by Centerfolds. Gowrylow says some people choose the sole-proprietor route to avoid the costs associated with incorporation. Overton’s corporation was maintained by attorney John Hess, who was disbarred in 2001 for legal malpractice, one year before Overton became a sole proprietor. "

This story is all about energy, coal and political connections,  We’ll exerpt it for you:

"More than five years after a Boone County jury decided against it in a coal contract dispute, Massey Energy Co. is arguing its resulting appeal today to the state Supreme Court.

The jurors awarded $50 million in damages to Harman Mining and company president Hugh Caperton, a cousin of former Gov. Gaston Caperton.

Post-judgment interest has increased that award daily. It now approaches $76 million. Lawyers for Massey have also asked the justices to consider reducing that component of the judgment, The Associated Press reports.

As it did in a 2006 federal lawsuit, later dismissed, the leading coal producer blamed much of the delay in appealing on a court stenographer who allegedly botched the trial transcript badly after repeatedly failing to deliver it on time.

Harmon alleged that Massey ruined the company after voiding a 10-year sales contract. "Massey contends Harman filed for bankruptcy because of mounting losses at its Grundy, Va., mining operation and other problems that had nothing to do with Massey," AP reports.

The Supreme Court has posted the briefs filed by both sides in the case. The court’s web site also hosts streaming video of its motions and arguments dockets.

The pending appeal may prove one of the most-watched of the term, which began Sept. 11.

Massey and its supporters have cited critical comments by Justice Larry Starcher in seeking to remove him from hearing the case.

The other side points both to Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard’s longtime friendship with Massey chief Don Blankenship, and to Blankenship’s bankrolling of a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that helped elect Republican Justice Brent Benjamin over then-incumbent Warren McGraw in 2004.

As AP notes, "Massey has since sued the Kentucky law firm that defended it in the Harman case for legal malpractice. The coal company blames the firm for losing a related claim pursued by Harman in Virginia, which yielded a $6 million judgment against Massey."