Hinshaw reports that there is no insurance coverage for this attorney-attorney law suit over referral fees. "The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s claims made policy did not require the insurer to defend an insured lawyer who was sued by another lawyer for allegedly fraudulently inducing him to accept a client whose claim was time-barred"

Here is a report of the case in which Reed Smith is accused of conflict of interest and legal malpractice.

"In Axcan Scandipharm v. Reed Smith, Axcan, a pharmaceutical company, claimed that the firm engaged in an impermissible conflict that led to disclosure of confidential information by the firm to a second client.

According to an opinion written by Philadelphia’s Commerce Case Management Program Judge Howland W. Abramson, Reed Smith represented Axcan in a patent litigation case brought against the company in federal court. Axcan was indemnified by American Home Products Corp. (AHP) — which is now known as Wyeth — and/or Eurand International, and AHP/Eurand paid Reed Smith for its representation of Axcan under that indemnification agreement, Abramson said. "

Man wrongfully convicted of murder, now exonorated and released.  He brings a suit against all, including his attorney.  An article on the case.

Long a question in legal fee cases is whether the cost of electronic legal research [monthly, or per case] is part of the general overhead of a lawfirm, or a cost which may be awarded to the successful attorney?

Here is a case: Insinga v. Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A., 03 Civ. 7775
Decided: March 12, 2007  District Judge Richard J. Holwell  U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  [case viewable by subscription] which holds that electronic legal research costs are recoverable in the 2d Circuit.

Here is a quote from the case.  Note that the court also awards fees for bringing the motion for fees.

"With respect to costs, although plaintiff has outlined the types of costs for which he requests reimbursement, he has not yet submitted figures to the Court. Defendants have reserved their right to respond to plaintiff’s specific requests after he submits a bill to the Court. In the meantime, defendants object to one category of plaintiff’s request: reimbursement for electronic legal research. The Second Circuit has made clear, though, that "charges for such online research may properly be included in a fee award." Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 369 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2004); see also James, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5401, at *67 ("Legal research costs are recoverable in an application for attorneys’ fees."); Raniola v. Bratton, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7199 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (awarding cost of Westlaw research because, "absent the use of computer research, the awarded attorney’s fees would probably be larger" (internal citation omitted)).

The Court therefore directs plaintiff to submit a bill detailing the costs for which it seeks reimbursement, including electronic legal research, within thirty days of this Opinion. The Court also grants plaintiff leave at that time to submit a supplemental motion for the legal services rendered after the date this motion was first served, which, among other things, will presumably include records for time spent defending this motion and preparing plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s unsuccessful motion for judgment as a matter of law. See also Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311, 314 (2d Cir. 1999) (permitting compensation for time spent after the initial fee application, including time spent in preparing and defending an application for fees). "

When we search the web for news and articles about legal malpractice, the term often pops up as a sort of generic "wrong" when it neen not really apply. This publicity release seems to be one of those instances. 

"High-profile United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office is defending three employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Attorney Lynne Murphy for their part in a purported $9 million tax fraud. They have been sued in the Northern District of Illinois for allegedly fabricating and falsifying IRS tax records.

Henry has sued the United States Department of Justice, the IRS and all individuals involved, for fabricating and falsifying this deficiency notice and for ignoring the Supreme Court rulings. Based on the evidence that the IRS claims it has in its possession Goldman Sachs, Cisco Systems and Henry Paulsen along with the IRS and the U.S. Government withheld records and evidence in the Delaware bankruptcy filing of American Metrocomm Corporation. Henry is claiming civil damages for legal malpractice, bankruptcy fraud and damages against the government and its individual employees for creating and falsifying government tax records and for withholding documents from the bankruptcy court. "

However, Ms. Murphy maintains that a U.S. attorney can commit fraud and ignore Supreme Court rulings while working for the U.S. Government, because the U.S. Government and its employees are immune to lawsuits under so-called “sovereign immunity.” In the meantime, Ms. Murphy continues to work on tax-related cases.

the New York Post is rarely a cite for us.  Here is a legal malpractice story from the Post about the subway hero and legal malpractice.  It can creep into almost any story.

"The Subway Superman who risked his life to save a fellow straphanger says he was taken for a ride and then thrown under the bus by a smooth-talking lawyer and her business partner"[The lawyers’] conduct in seeking to extract money from schoolchildren . . . is causing damage to his reputation and portraying him in a false light as a man of greed," the suit says.

His legal-malpractice suit seeks unspecified "damages for injury to plaintiff’s good name and reputation" from the pair’s conduct "in seeking to profit from his name."

Kleiman said her deal with Autrey was "very fair" – and she was just doing what Autrey and his family had asked her to do. "It’s very cut and dry," Kleiman said. "

Here is a short article with this message:  dabble at your own risk of legal malpractice.

"Bankruptcy is widely recognized by lawyers who do not practice in that area regularly as such a specialized area that they do not “dabble” in it, as many general practitioners do in other areas. Example: a lot of “GP” lawyers will offer a variety of services – drafting wills, representation in DUI and other criminal matters, personal injury litigation, and real estate, to cite but one example I know of – and will entertain “becoming competent” through self-study in a new area (as the rules of professional conduct explicitly provide), but will steadfastly refuse to file bankruptcy petitions. The reason: it’s recognized by many to be so complex that the GP is asking for trouble – i.e., a malpractice claim – if s/he “dabbles” and messes up. "

Justice Ramos of Supreme Court, New York County is handling a strange case.  Plaintiff sued American Home Products in a Phen-Fen case with Napoli Bern being lead counsel.  A conflict exists between their direct clients and the rest of the group. 

"A New York state judge has ordered a trial to determine whether the law firm that negotiated a massive settlement with the maker of banned diet drug fen-phen violated ethical rules by apportioning the settlement in a manner designed to inflate the firm’s share of the funds.

In 2001, the firm now known as Napoli Bern Ripka sued American Home Products (AHP), now known as Wyeth, on behalf of around 5,000 former users of fen-phen (dexfenfluramine), a diet drug recalled by the Food and Drug Administration after studies linked it to heart valve damage. American Home settled the suit under confidential terms, though the settlement has been estimated to be over $1 billion.

But in a decision issued Tuesday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos said there were serious questions about Napoli Bern’s conduct in dividing and distributing the settlement that needed to be addressed in a trial. He cited in particular an affidavit submitted by a former attorney at Napoli Bern who said the firm had misled clients about the process.

The lawyer, Stephen David Murakami, worked on fen-phen litigation at Napoli Bern before being terminated in 2001 and then unsuccessfully sued the firm for allegedly unpaid bonuses. In his affidavit, Murakami said the firm had told clients their portions of the settlement had been individually negotiated with American Home, when in fact they had been solely determined by Napoli Bern.

"The representation to a client that a specific dollar amount was offered in a negotiation with the defendant to settle the client’s case, when in fact the settlement offer was by the client’s own attorney made upon the attorney’s evaluation, if true, represents a serious breach of duty to the client," Ramos wrote in New York Diet Drug Litigation, 700000/98.

According to Murakami, a major determinant in the size of a client’s share was whether he or she had retained Napoli Bern directly or been referred by another firm. Napoli Bern allegedly inflated the settlement payments of its direct clients because its fees from those clients would not be reduced by referral fees.

A hearing raises the possibility that the prior settlement could be modified or even vacated. The judge said the allocation of settlement