We reported on this case, based on the hews article.  Here is Siagha v. David Katz & Associates LLP, 603927/05 :

"This is a contract action to recover alleged damages concerning legal fees and expenses allegedly not included in the retainer agreement of plaintiff Omar Siagha ("plaintiff").

Plaintiff moves for an order (1) awarding partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on his claim for disgorgement of all fees as against defendant David Katz ("Katz") and Katz & Associates ("K&A"), (2) disgorging defendants of such fees in excess of one-third of the final amount collected from the underlying defendant and/or its carrier as a result of the judgment obtained in Siagha v. Salant-Jerome, Inc., or (3) awarding partial summary judgment against Keith LePack ("LePack") in the amount of not less than $100,000.

Defendants Katz, K&A and LePack (collectively "defendants") oppose the motion, and cross move for an order dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7), or in the alternative, awarding summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 in favor of Katz, K&A and LePack., and imposing sanctions and costs against plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, et seq., for plaintiff’s frivolous action in keeping LePack named as a defendant.

On or about August 1998, after the damages verdict, Saint Jerome’s insurance companies denied coverage and refused to satisfy the judgment. Katz & Rosenblatt commenced a declaratory judgment action. This action was dismissed, Katz & Rosenblatt appealed and the Appellate Division First Department reversed and granted plaintiff summary judgment. The insurance companies sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied.

Plaintiff’s judgment was for $1,680,093.08 and K&A received a total fee of $870,057.60. This was purportedly equal to one-third of the recovery less purported expenses and minus legal fees for the appeal of the summary judgment, the appeal on the merits and the declaratory judgment action. The legal fees charged to plaintiff for the appellate and collateral matters was $182,100.00. Plaintiff recovered approximately 52 percent of the gross settlement.

A client retaining an attorney on a contingent basis, in the absence of clear and express language to the contrary, contemplates that the percentage fixed is to constitute payment for whatever services may be necessary to obtain collection of any judgment which may be recovered, whether the services be in connection with an appeal taken from the judgment or in connection with efforts to collect the judgment, or both (Ellis v. Mitchell, 193 Misc. 956, 85 N.Y.S.2d 398 [Sup. Ct. New York County 1948] citing Larkin v. Frazier, 224 N.Y. 421, 121 N.E. 105). New York law is generally hostile to midstream efforts to increase contingency fee percentages (see, e.g., 22 NYCRR 603.7[e][4] [limiting opportunities for attorneys to increase contingent fee percentages in certain types of actions]; Belzer v. Bollea, 150 Misc2d 925, 928-29 [NY Sup Ct 1990] [rejecting contingent fee increases that did not comport with 22 NYCRR 603.7(e)(4) regardless of "whether the client in fact agreed or disagreed to additional fees"]). Thus, based on a plain reading of the retainer agreement, there was no agreement for plaintiff to compensate any attorneys, including Katz and K&A separate fees related to services performed on appeal or other collateral matters beyond the 33 1/3 amount as specified in the retainer agreement."

Trautenberg v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, 06 Civ. 14211 reported today:

"Plaintiff David H. Trautenberg sued defendants the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, attorney Brad S. Karp, and attorney Daniel J. Toal (collectively "Paul Weiss"), for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of New York Judiciary Law §487. Paul Weiss moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The motion to dismiss is granted.

"Plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys, however, were aware of Paul Weiss’s dual role and its potential for conflict. On many occasions during the negotiations, plaintiff’s attorneys told Paul Weiss that its representation of Citigroup against plaintiff was improper. On one such occasion, Karp responded by telling plaintiff’s attorneys to "stop lecturing" him. Compl. ¶49. In addition, during the legal preparation for the WorldCom bankruptcy litigation, plaintiff "continually objected to Defendants’ representation of Citigroup/SSB in connection with his employment matter and Defendants’ conduct in ‘holding him hostage’ with respect to his employment matter until the completion of his WorldCom civil suit testimony." Id. at ¶61. Despite these objections, Paul Weiss did not withdraw as counsel for Citigroup in the negotiations, nor did plaintiff or his attorneys take any action to force Paul Weiss to withdraw from the negotiations or discontinue their dual representation in the other proceedings. "

 

The Madison St. Claire Record reports

"The Lakin Law Firm filed suit against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Lloyd’s Illinois, Affinity Insurance and Norton & Rain alleging the defendants failed to defend the firm in a federal lawsuit.

Represented by Charles Chapman of the Lakin firm, the suit states the Lakin firm hired Norton & Rain Inc. (NRI), an insurance broker, to procure coverages including professional liability insurance for the firm.

"NRI recommended that Plaintiff purchase professional liability insurance coverage from Lloyd’s," states the complaint filed Aug. 3 in Madison County Circuit Court.

Chapman states that the Lakin firm followed the advice of NRI and purchased the insurance from Lloyd’s in 2006 and paid the premium of $427,025 for the policy’s coverage.

According to Chapman, the Lloyd’s policy required the Lakin firm to notify Affinity of any claim made against the firm, which they did after injured railroad worker Stephen Williams filed suit against the firm in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on Oct. 7, 2006.

U.S. District Judge Claire V. Eagan, chief judge of the Northern District of Oklahoma, on April 18 entered a default judgment of $3,752,601.80 against Thomas Lakin and the Lakin firm in Williams’ legal malpractice claim. "

Reported today in the Indiana Law Blog:  Querrey & Harrow v. Transcontinental Ins. Co. (2/19/07), where the COA ruled: "Defendants-Appellees raise numerous issues, which we consolidate as: I. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Indiana allows an excess insurer to bring an action for legal malpractice against an insured’s attorneys. II. Whether the trial court erred in holding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the insured’s attorneys and CNA. III. Whether CNA’s legal malpractice action was timely filed. * * * We remand with instructions that the trial court enter summary judgment for Querry and Sanders."

This couple won a free speech and damages case in St. Louis.  Now, on behalf of the municipal losers, they are suing the attorney for losing the punitive damages claim.

"A couple who won a nearly $1.4 million federal free speech lawsuit against the city and its former mayor, now are suing the city and its law firm in state court.

Brian Hodak is suing the Hazelwood and Weber law firm on behalf of St. Peters taxpayers alleging negligence and legal malpractice. The suit asks the law firm to pay for the $1 million punitive damages from the federal free speech lawsuit, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

His wife Karla’s company, H/N Planning and Control Inc., has filed a separate suit seeking $1 million from the city and punitive damages"

How bad can it get?  This story from the Madison St. Claire newspaper, tells the story of a young hunter who is shot in the foot, and taken to a hospital.  There he is discharged, no one treats an infection, he gets gangrene, has toe amputated, hires attorney to sue doctor, and finds out that attorney did nothing.

This is a string of bad luck.  Will his legal malpractice lawyer now drop the ball?  Keep tuned. 

 

Anthony Lin in the NYLJ reports that a law firm which was successful in a $1.2 million dollar assault case may only take its 1/3 contingency fee.  It had charged another $ 450,000 for appellate and collateral work without an additional retainer, and without even a letter to the client.

"Lawyers whose original retainer agreement stated only that they would receive a one-third contingent fee must disgorge additional fees collected for an appeal and collateral litigation, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

Omar Siagha was assaulted in 1993 by a bartender at an Upper East Side restaurant called Ruby’s River Road Cafe. To pursue a claim against the restaurant, Mr. Siagha contacted lawyer Michael J. Rosenblatt, then an associate at the firm of Schwartz, Gutstein & Associates.

Mr. Rosenblatt soon thereafter left the firm to start his own practice and then to co-found Katz & Rosenblatt with attorney David Katz. The suit against the restaurant was filed by Katz & Rosenblatt, which later became Katz & Associates after Mr. Rosenblatt’s resignation. A jury returned a verdict of $1.2 million, which was affirmed on appeal. "

Following further litigation with the insurance companies, Mr. Siagha received a judgment of $1.7 million, from which Katz & Associates took a fee of around $870,000, including one-third of the award and legal costs relating to the appeal and collateral litigation.

The NYLJ reports today that

"A federal judge in Manhattan has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison by the onetime private banker to former WorldCom Inc. chief executive officer Bernard Ebbers.

David H. Trautenberg, the former co-head of Citigroup’s private wealth management group, sued Paul Weiss in December for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming the law firm used against him in severance negotiations confidences it gained while jointly representing him and Citigroup in WorldCom-related matters.

The ex-banker received a $5 million severance package that he claimed would have been $25 million without Paul Weiss’ interference.

But Southern District Judge George Daniels said Mr. Trautenberg had failed to show that "but for" Paul Weiss’ actions, he would have received more money.

The judge noted that Mr. Trautenberg had not alleged in his complaint that Citigroup had ever offered or considered offering a $25 million severance package. The banker’s belief that he was owed that amount based on the book of business he left at Citigroup was "purely speculative," Judge Daniels said. "

 

We will note the decision later this week.

In another Estate and Beneficiary case, plaintiff loses in this Missouri case/  The Show Me Blog reports:

"Missouri court of Appeals Southern District dismisses deceased heirs’ combined suit against deceased’s second wife and the law firm that prepared their joint wills after widow disinherited the deceased’s children after he died."

Jeana Jackson, et al., v. Williams, Robinson, White & Rigler, P.C., John Williams, and Ellen Moore,  28041

"The possibility that Plaintiffs will be deprived of their inheritance because of the alleged negligence of Williams is, as of now, purely speculative and uncertain. Because it was not certain they would ever have an estate or any vested right to protect, nor that they would survive the life tenant). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for legal malpractice."

Law is the underlying organizer of all things human.  No part of society is truely lawless, and everything that has to do with the government is law based.  No surprise, but here is a blurb from farm and farmer rights activists, touching on legal malpractice.

"Some USDA employees, including a top official in the department, are organizing a lobbying campaign to eliminate a provision in the farm bill passed July 27 by the House of Representatives that would reopen a landmark civil rights case against the department for discrimination in providing farm loans to black farmers.

Deadline barred 64,000 claims, despite lack of notice.The settlement-funded arbitrator rejected 64,000 farmers who came forward with claims during the late claims process established by the court. The farmers’ attorneys, whose representation was characterized by the court as "bordering on legal malpractice," were responsible for properly notifying the farmers of the original deadline for application.