We reported on this case a week ago, but here is another take on the issue of PA Appeals and vagueness:

"A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel has affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice action brought against Fox Rothschild by two brothers who claimed the firm’s handling of a family will left their inheritance lighter than it should have been.

However, the majority in Hess v. Fox Rothschild ruled that Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Annette M. Rizzo had been wrong to reject the brothers’ appeal as too vaguely worded.

The case sheds light on a rare theme in the ongoing Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) saga.

Typically, state court judges have used that appellate procedural rule to bounce an appeal if the appellate statement was too long and/or raised too many issues.

But the rule also directed attorneys not to make their statements overly vague, and a number of appeals were quashed under that provision of the rule.

When the justices approved amendments to Rule 1925 earlier this month, they prospectively precluded judges from nixing an appeal solely because of the number of issues raised. That measure was likely in response to practitioners’ gripes that appeals in complex or high-stakes cases might necessarily involve dozens of issues.

But the high court also added new language to the rule that will permit civil litigation appellants to attach to their 1925(b) statements a preface explaining the statement has been phrased in general terms because the appellants don’t believe they can "readily discern the basis" for trial judges’ decisions. "

Here is a NJ case on legal malpractice insurance coverage for retired partners who continue handling certain matters.

"Thanks to ambiguous and vague policy language, a professional liability carrier will have to cover a law firm partner for malpractice allegedly committed after he left an insured firm, a New Jersey appeals court says.

The judges ruled on May 25 that where a policy limited coverage for a firm’s retired partners but not for partners who still practiced law and handled cases referred by the firm, the policy would be read against the carrier, Zurich Specialties London Limited.

"Zurich could have utilized policy language that would have eliminated all ambiguity and which would have put the matter beyond all reasonable question," the judges wrote in Jolley v. Marquess, A-4513-0. "Zurich did not do so; therefore, we construe the ambiguity in favor of coverage, which is the approach long favored in this state."

The judges noted, however, "Our own research, and that of the parties, yields no reported decisions in this state construing this policy language."

In 1997, John Marquess, a partner at what was then Marquess, Morrison and Trimble in Turnersville, N.J., represented defendant Barbara Gorna in an automobile accident case. The case was assigned by Gorna’s insurer, American Independent Insurance Co., a client of the firm.

In 2000, Marquess was bought out by his two partners but, with their consent, continued to represent Gorna as a Haddonfield, N.J., solo. No substitution of attorney appears to have been filed.

The same year, a jury found Gorna 100 percent liable for the injuries to the plaintiff, Kimberly Jolley. Without Gorna’s consent, Marquess entered into an agreement with Jolley’s attorney that Gorna would pay Jolley $750,000, plus interest, in damages. Marquess told Gorna she would not be responsible for the judgment above her $15,000 coverage limit, but that was not stated in the agreement.

Attorney is hired to fix IRS problems.  Tells Client to give he a check, and he will pay the IRS.  Check cashed, IRS not paid, Attorney arrested, and now a legal malpractice case.  Here is the story.

"BENTONVILLE — A Bentonville attorney arrested on fraud and theft charges has been sued by the mother and son who told police he mishandled amendments to their 2005 federal tax returns and Internal Revenue Service payments.

Rogers attorney Timothy C. Hutchinson filed the suit Wednesday in Benton County Circuit Court on behalf of Carol L. Fountain and Charles Fountain.

Archer was arrested earlier this month on criminal charges related to incidents addressed in the civil suit. He remains in the Benton County Jail in lieu of a $75,000 bond and is set to be arraigned July 2.

The civil suit claims the Fountains retained Archer in April 2006 to handle filing of amended tax returns that included income from an inheritance the Fountains received.

Archer told Carol Fountain she owed $36,000 to the IRS, and he asked the check be made out to him and he would forward the money.

Rather than paying the IRS, Archer cashed and presumably spent the money, the suit claims, and the tax return was never filed. "

This story from law.com:

"A rare U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that declared a patent unenforceable because of the patent attorney’s inequitable conduct during the patent application process is likely to increase lawyers’ disclosures to the patent office.

On May 18, the court upheld a California federal court decision that declared a McKesson Information Solutions August 1989 patent involving bar-coding technology for hospitals unenforceable.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that patent lawyer Michael Schumann acted with deceptive intent by withholding three key items of information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including details about prior art and a rejected co-pending patent application.

Schumann, who is now with Minneapolis-based intellectual property firm Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, declined to comment. "

The details are a little sparse in this story but after losing a $ 6.5 milliion medical malpractice case, the hospital and its attorney are now on the hook for a $ 1.3 million sanction too.

"A Parkersburg-area hospital has been ordered to pay a $1.3 million sanction in a medical malpractice lawsuit. This after a judge says it violated court orders, among other misconduct, during a recent trial.

Wood County Circuit Court Judge Robert Waters imposed the sanction against Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital in an order issued last week.

Waters’ order says Camden-Clark’s misconduct included inaccurate answers during the discovery process and inaccurate testimony.

This order came from an underlying lawsuit alleging the malpractice in the death of Hilda Boggs.

Boggs died in 2001 following surgery on a broken ankle. "

A Wood County jury found that the anesthesiologist negligently overdosed Boggs with Lidocaine.

The jury in that case awarded $6.5 million to Boggs’ estate in March 2006. The case is now being appealed by the hospital. "

We really can’t explain it.  Here is the story.  Was it the unhealthy aspect of french fries ?  Was it residual anti-French feelings from the Iraq war?  Would "freedom fries" have been OK?

"Saying a bankruptcy judge was "a few french fries short of a Happy Meal" may cost an out-of-state lawyer the ability to practice in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The comment already has cost Chicago-based McDermott Will & Emery partner William P. Smith his client — Miami Beach’s Mount Sinai Medical Center & Miami Heart Institute.

Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff in Miami also slapped the hospital with a restraining order at the same hearing where Smith made his fast-food quip. She found Mount Sinai’s anti-competitive actions in the bankruptcy case of South Beach Community Hospital violated bankruptcy law.

During a May 7 hearing, Smith told Isicoff, "I suggest with respect, your honor, that you’re a few french fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what’s likely to take place."

Smith’s comment and a show-cause order against him were first reported by the legal blog Above the Law.

Smith did not return calls for comment, and Mount Sinai spokeswoman Kathleen Dorkowski declined to comment on the case.

McDermott Will & Emery issued a statement, saying: "We expect our lawyers to observe established rules and protocols of professional conduct in the courtroom. Any departure from that standard is of concern to us, and we look forward to a resolution of this matter."

Plaintiff is injured in a train accident, and wins $3 million.  Law firm and a money manager both get into trouble. The Story:

 Attorney "Lakin was indicted April 23 on charges of cocaine use and distribution as well as transporting a minor male to Malibu, Calif. with the intent to engage in sexual activity. He is free on a $250,000 unsecured bond and his trial is set to begin Jan. 10, 2008, in Benton. "

"Stephen Williams of Chouteau, Okla. filed suit against the Lakins in federal court on Sept. 26, 2006, after his $3 million-plus, tax-free structured settlement with Union Pacific over a 1991 injury was absconded by money manager-turned thief James Gibson"

"U.S. District Judge Claire V. Eagan, chief judge of the Northern District of Oklahoma, entered the judgment on April 18 after the Lakins did not appear in the case, even after being granted extra time to answer. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Illinois on May 24. "

"In April, the Record reported that Lakin’s malpractice insurer, the Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Co., has not paid the firm’s clients over the loss of funds.

Clients of Lakin and other firms lost about $50 million eight years ago when Gibson, the manager of their settlement funds, stole the money. "

Lead Plaintiff in a class action is unhappy with settlement amount, and seeks to sue the class action attorney and sues class action attorney in legal malpractice.  Holding:  plaintiff is collaterally estopped from suing.

Hinshaw reports: "J. Michael Koehler v. Jules Brody, et al., ___F.3d___, 2007 WL 895864 (8th Cir. 2007)

Brief Summary

Two years after a court approved a class action settlement, a lead plaintiff brought suit against former class counsel for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation, claiming that the settlement was too low and that it should have been paid in stock to avoid adverse tax consequences. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of these claims on the ground that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from suing class counsel to attack the class recovery.

Complete Summary

This case arose out of a global settlement of a number of class action cases related to the merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica into Bank of America. J. Michael Koehler was a lead plaintiff and class representative. The court appointed the firms of Green, Schaaf & Jacobsen, P.C., Chitwood & Harley, and Stull, Stull & Brody as co-lead counsel. A mediation was held in January 2002 under the direction of a former federal district judge. Mr. Koehler and some other lead plaintiffs were present at negotiations but left after two days. The mediation continued and resulted in a $490 million settlement.

Hearings were then held to determine the fairness of the settlement. Mr. Koehler retained separate counsel and objected to the settlement. He felt the settlement was too low and was disproportionately distributed among the shareholder classes. He also felt the settlement was invalid because he had not been present when the settlement agreement was reached, because he allegedly had been misled by counsel and because counsel had allegedly made false representations to the court about his approval that violated the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLSRA”). Mr. Koehler also alleged other ethical violations by the attorneys, and submitted an expert affidavit from a legal ethics specialist regarding the alleged breaches. Id. at *1. "