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."

This case which is being reported [with some glee] by the asbestos defendant [the complaint mentions Lorillard Tobacco Co., however] claims that several law firms that were admitted pro haec vice in Cleveland committed negligence and fraud,  The Legal Pad blog fills out the story:

"If Bay Area plaintiff’s attorney Christopher Andreas never returned to Cleveland, it would probably be too soon. But a former client wants him back so a jury can hear malpractice claims against Andreas and his firm.

In a complaint (.pdf) filed Oct. 3 in an Ohio state court, Jack Kananian, Andreas’ former client, said he was forced to settle an asbestos suit against Lorillard Tobacco Co. at a discount because of “negligent professional misconduct” by Andreas. Kananian also accused Andreas’ firm, Brayton Purcell of Novato and Early, Ludwick & Sweeney, a firm based in New Haven, Conn., of committing malpractice.

“The collective negligent conduct of all named defendants fell below the acceptable standards of skill, care and diligence requisite in the legal representation of a client,” David Forrest, a Cleveland attorney representing Kananian, said in the complaint.

Kananian’s claims appear to be based on a Cleveland judge’s ruling in January that said Andreas and his firm tried to cash in fraudulent asbestos claim forms then lied in court to cover it up, among other lawyerly no-nos. Andreas has denied those allegations. "

Whats the asbestos-tobacco connection?

Hinshaw reports this case: Ellis J. Burnett v. Daryl M. South, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 4497729 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2007)

"Tennessee Appeals Court Concludes Criminal Defendant Client May Bring Legal Malpractice Action Before Seeking or Receiving Post-Conviction Relief . The court held that a criminal defendant who wished to sue his attorney for legal malpractice following a conviction could do so before obtaining relief from the conviction in order to avoid the “Catch 22” situation posed by the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions. The case may then be stayed to see whether the legal malpractice plaintiff is able to obtain relief from the conviction. "

This case illustrates the difference between legal malpractice claims and overbilling claims.  Ironicly, the defendant law firm concerntrates [specializes?] in legal malpractice litigation.

Gamiel v Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C. ,2007 NY Slip Op 07341 ,Decided on October 4, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department 

"Plaintiff’s affidavit was conclusory (see Murray Hill Invs. v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 305 AD2d 228, 229 [2003]), and failed to set forth the requisite "but for" causation with respect to her legal malpractice claims (see Aquino v Kuczinski, Vila & Assoc., P.C., 39 AD3d 216, 218-219 [2007]), a deficiency not remedied by her attorney’s affirmation. However, we find that plaintiff sufficiently set forth the merit of her claims concerning overbilling and the withholding of her files to
preclude summary resolution of those claims (see Batra v Office Furniture Serv., 275 AD2d 229 [2000]). "

This report from Law.Com  tells the story of an international quest for payment on a divorce attorney fee, as well as the underlying monies due from a rich husband to the wife and an attorney.

"Lawyers whose clients refuse to pay their fees routinely file lawsuits and win judgments against them. But attorney Ellen Marshall’s disputes with a former divorce client have been anything but routine. Then again, Warren Matthei is no ordinary client.

Matthei, a millionaire stockbroker from Summit, N.J., spent nearly a decade in jail — first for refusing to pay child support to his ex-wife and later for refusing to pay Marshall’s attorney fees. Marshall obtained an $85,000 judgment against Matthei, but court records show she has all but given up on getting the money from Matthei.

Instead, in a separate lawsuit, Marshall is pursuing RICO claims against lawyers in Pennsylvania and London, England, who, she claims, have assisted Matthei in hiding his assets from her.

Now a federal judge has refused to dismiss the lawsuit in a scathing opinion that says "this dispute exemplifies why there are reports of the public’s disdain for lawyers."

In her 46-page opinion in Marshall v. Fenstermacher, U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter dismissed Marshall’s federal RICO claims, but found that she may nonetheless have valid RICO claims under New Jersey law against attorney Ronald Fenstermacher and his firm, High Swartz Roberts & Seidel, in Norristown, Pa., and British attorney David Burgess and his London law firm, Hetherington & Co. To understand Marshall’s claims against the Norristown and London lawyers, one first needs to understand Marshall’s long history with Matthei. "

This is an otherwise unremarkable story about an attorney who made a mistake.  Mistakes happen all the time, and when a client is hurt by the mistake, the attorney is guilty of legal malpractice.  Reasonable and competent attorneys make mistakes, and have insurance to cover their mistakes.  This attorney was so unreasonable and obsessed, he was eventually disbarred.

What we loved in this story  were the names of some of these injunctions and motions:

"Courts had entered Bills of Peace and Perpetual Injunctions in a failed attempt to put the matters to an end. The Georgia Supreme Court had imposed sanctions for frivolous appeals three times. The court now has ordered disbarment"

Front page of the Wall Street Journal is all about the US Supreme Court Stoneridge case.  Asode fr, what it will mean for the securities industry, the WSJ believes this to be the largest potential widening of liability for lawyers.

Keep watching this case for its legal malpractice or lawyer liability issues.

 "The Supreme Court is wading into one of the most intense battles ever waged between two deep-pocketed enemies: the trial bar and big business.

Today, the justices will hear arguments in a case that hinges on whether defrauded shareholders should be allowed to sue not just the company that committed the crime, but also its advisers, lawyers, accountants and vendors
The showdown comes at a time when the plaintiffs bar is losing ground. In June, the Supreme Court sided with business when deciding what standard of proof plaintiffs must meet to file securities lawsuits against companies. Earlier this year, the justices essentially inoculated Wall Street firms from antitrust claims. The Bush administration says it is working with regulators on a series of recommendations to "balance" the U.S.’s competitive position with shareholder litigation."