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. "

Here is a NJ case about legal malpractice insurance coverage for successor attorneys.

"In this appeal, we decide whether a policy of insurance providing coverage for legal malpractice requires the insurer to provide indemnification to a former partner of a law firm for acts of malpractice allegedly committed subsequent to the dissolution of that firm. Under the facts presented, we conclude that the former partner was acting "solely in a professional capacity on behalf of such firm," as required by the policy of insurance and was entitled to a defense and indemnification. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant John J. Marquess"

Here in the SCOKY Blog we have a list of upcoming KY Supreme Court arguments, complete with briefs and records.  The case of Kaplan v. Puckett appears to be a successful prisoner v. attorney legal malpractice case.

Follow for results!

This "immediate release" letter from whistleblower sounds like an attempt by the client to shame defendants into a settlement.  We are often asked whether shame plays a role in legal malpractice.  Clients often believe that an attorney will settle rather than litigate for fear of having this sort of a press release hit the web.

We saw this on a search for legal malpractice.  How many others read this is unknown.  Do you think this will pressure the attorneys’s insurance carrier to settle?

Loeb & Loeb has been using a retainer agreement that required arbitration.  This reported case is the second of two in which Loeb & Loeb has successfully stayed legal malpractice cases in favor of arbitration.  This case held that the Supreme Court Case is stayed whild arbitration goes  forward.  Other courts have held that arbitration of legal malpractice cases runs against public policy.

This story is beyond belief.  Plaintiff is convicted of a crime, and then the conviction is reversed.    However, no one, not his attorney, not the DA, and not the state ever let him out!  Result?  He stayed in jail for 17 years after reversal.

"Although the Michigan Court Appeals in 1989 overturned his 1987 conviction because inadmissible evidence was used against him, no one ever acted on the court’s order. It just sat there while Heyerman sat in prison — for an incredible 17 years. His original attorney did nothing to challenge his imprisonment.

The government was equally at fault. The Calhoun County prosecutor and circuit court failed to either re-try Heyerman or drop charges against him. Meanwhile, the Parole Board denied him release three times after he had served his minimum sentence.

Heyerman would still be in an Upper Peninsula prison if another inmate, a jailhouse lawyer, hadn’t helped him write a writ to get a new trial. Two weeks ago, a Calhoun County judge finally dropped all the charges against the 54-year-old former janitor. "

Heyerman plans to sue his original attorney and to file a civil suit against the state for wrongful imprisonment. This mess is likely to cost taxpayers more than they paid to keep Heyerman locked up.