First, our disclosure.  We were a prosecutor, and we have done a little criminal defense work, but we have never been in this position, as told by Law.Blog

"A public defender in Ohio was arrested on Thursday for contempt of court after he declined to move forward with a misdemeanor assault trial he had been assigned just a day earlier. At the start of the trial he told the judge he was unprepared"  in Ravenna, Ohio

"Before trial, Judge Plough had reportedly given the public defender, Brian Jones, an extra two and a half hours to prepare. Jones was released from jail on Friday, and his contempt hearing is set for this Friday.

Plough didn’t comment to ABC News but told the Record-Courier: “The public defender’s office is not going to impede justice in Portage County."

Legal malpractice is not just about missed personal injury statutes, nor about simple failures in calendar practice.  Here is an anti-trust legal malpractice case involving Mylan Labs and the Eliot Disner law firm. The lab paid out more than $ 150 million in penalties and disgorgement.

"In June, Mylan Laboratories Inc. and UDL Laboratories, Inc., one of its subsidiaries, sued their former counsel, Eliot G. Disner and his firm, Eliot G. Disner, P.C., in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia (Morgantown), for what they claimed was negligence and breach of contract regarding advice he provided on antitrust issues. Here’s the complaint.

Mylan alleges that Disner committed malpractice in three ways. First, he "allowed Mylan to enter into the exclusive supply agreement with Profarmaco/GYMA [who were to supply Mylan with the "active pharmaceutical ingredients" for lorazepam and clorazepate for the generic versions of the drugs on an exclusive basis] without fully investigating the issues or apprising Mylan of the substantial risks." Mylan also alleges that Disner allowed it "to engage SST/FIS [another supplier of lorazepam and clorazepate] in discussions on a similar exclusive arrangement, introducing a damaging horizontal element into an antitrust equation." Finally, Mylan alleges that after the FTC initiated an investigation into Mylan’s conduct, Disner "offered no advice to mitigate the problems facing Mylan or suggesting the risks that Mylan faced — instead advising that the FTC would accept a harmless consent decree, that the FTC had no ability to seek damages, and that the states would drop their claims when the FTC dropped its claims."

Law Com relays this story of an attorney-executor who had control of an estate’s charitible contributions, and is now being sued for his selection of where to give away the money.

"A Pittsburgh no-kill animal shelter has filed a five-count lawsuit against a Pittsburgh attorney, alleging that he illegally reduced its portion of a wealthy widow’s multimillion-dollar estate.

Animal Friends Inc. claims in the lawsuit, filed in the court of common pleas, that Gregory Harbaugh of Houston Harbaugh abused his power-of-attorney status and diverted $1.2 million from four charitable organizations to three other charitable organizations with which he or his wife has financial ties.

The suit claims that Harbaugh secured power-of-attorney status in a questionable circumstance against Rita Conrady, whose "physical and mental condition made her an easy prey."

The suit also contends that Harbaugh breached his fiduciary obligations to both Conrady and to the originally named beneficiaries. The other counts in the complaint are breach of contract, intentional interference with an inter vivos trust, and fraud in the inducement. "

 Law.Com reports that the KPMG trial continues, and more attorney witnesses are being called to testify.

 "Collateral damage from the KPMG tax shelter imbroglio has struck Hogan & Hartson and two of the firm’s most prominent attorneys — Prentiss Feagles, co-director of the firm’s tax practice, and Paul Rogers, a partner in the firm’s health practice.

Both lawyers were subpoenaed last month at the request of KPMG’s lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who are defending their client over work done on behalf of Bernard Salick. Salick is a Los Angeles physician and entrepreneur who filed suit in California Superior Court in March 2005 against KPMG after shady tax shelters were sold to him by the company. Salick used three shelters, all thrown out after state and federal tax audits, to shield a significant part of his estimated $100 million net worth.

At the request of KPMG, the Superior Court issued a subpoena, which was then approved by D.C. Superior Court on July 27, for all documents pertaining to work done for Salick by the two Hogan lawyers from January 1995 to November 2003. Feagles says Salick came to the firm as a client of Rogers.

Its a horrible story.  A respected person,  in this case a judge, convicted of rape, reversed and exonorated on appeal now sues for legal malpractice.  Forgetting the technical issues of arbitration or trial of the legal malpractice case,  how terrible a situation is this?

Here is the nightmare:  you have a good case against an international hotel corporation for lack of security, and you have a badly injured client.  Do you take the case or refer it to a law firm that has done this type of work before?  As many attorneys know, sadly, trying to sue Club Med requires learning the actual names of  both the local and US corporations.  Here, in this case  plaintiff’s attorney missed several Hilton corporations and now has a problem.

"A Manhattan attorney’s confusion about the proper parties to sue did not justify filing a vicarious liability claim four months beyond the statute of limitations, a federal judge has held.

However, Southern District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum in Chrobak v. Hilton Group, 06 Civ. 1916, allowed to proceed a negligent supervision allegation filed by a woman who claimed that she was raped by a security guard at the hotel where she was vacationing. Mr. Manchanda, an attorney with the Manchanda Law Offices in Manhattan, said in court papers that though the parties were not named in the original complaint they should have known that, but for a "mistake," they would have been named.

Judge Cedarbaum said this argument was "unavailing."

Here, in acase reported from Texas by James (Sandy) McCorquodale we read of a creditor’s committee which wants the court to disqualify Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP from representing the bankrupt, alleging that they misfiled, filed late, and lost assets for the estate.  For now, the court has refused to disqualify the firm. In re Specialty Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 07-30779-HDH-11 (N.D. Tex. April 24, 2007). Ruling on Creditor’s Application to Disqualify Debtor’s Attorneys.

Here is an article on the changes to General Obligations Law section 15-108 by Patrick D. Bonner, Jr.

"Section 15-108 of the New York General Obligations Law (GOL) is a statute near and dear to any practitioner defending personal injury or product liability lawsuits in New York. The statute establishes the rules for apportionment of damages and contribution claims among joint tortfeasors in the situation where one defendant in a multidefendant lawsuit has settled prior to trial.

Recently, the New York State Legislature enacted an important amendment to GOL §15-108,1 effective July 4, 2007, that potentially may impact the way these cases are defended. The amendment – which adds a subsection (d) to §15-108 – removes from the scope of the statute (1) releases and covenants for less than one dollar; (2) releases and covenants that fail to "completely or substantially" terminate the dispute; and (3) such releases or covenants provided subsequent to the entry of judgment.

This article examines the legal and practical changes the amendment will have on the operation of §15-108 in connection with the defense and potential settlement of personal injury cases in New York. More specifically, the article discusses how the new amendment has the practical effect of shifting the burden to defendants, especially those with deep pockets, with regard to the collection of money judgments against released tortfeasors, as well as some of the unintended pitfalls that the amendment may create for defense counsel. "