Defendant attorneys working for a bankrupt insurer are still responsible for EBT transcript bill.  Here is a blurb from NYLJ subscription article:

"CLAIMANT REPORTING company sued in this small claims action against defendant law firm alleging defendants failed to pay for reporting services at a deposition. Defendants argued they were appearing on behalf of an insurer to defend one of its clients, but the insurer filed for bankruptcy and defendants would not be reimbursed if they paid claimant. Defendants argued an attorney was not required to pay fees incurred on behalf of a client as the attorney was only an agent. Claimant asserted General Business Law 399-cc was applicable. The court found the statute’s intent to make the attorney responsible for the stenographic costs was not changed by the amendment of 2006. It ruled claimant established that defendant agreed to participate in the deposition, and at no time did it indicate it would not be liable for the cost as required by the statute, nor were its services provided for a not-for-profit, as designated under the statute. The court concluded defendant was responsible for the stenography bill, and must collect from its client, awarding judgment to claimant. "

Here is a short review of an attorney fee dispute which involves Surrogate’s Court,  Federal District Court and a claim of unethical contingent fees. 

"Simmons, Jannace & Stagg held sway over federal court recently when it decided that any attorneys’ fees disputes that involve the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund should be litigated in the state courts"

The entire blog.

Cassandra Crotty, a legal malpractice blogger reports this case from Illinois:

"Yesterday’s Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported on an Illinois Appellate Court decision this week that found a fee-splitting agreement between two law firms involving a federal conspiracy lawsuit did not apply to a related legal malpractice case handled by only one of the firms. In affirming the circuit judge’s decision, the appeals court found as a matter of law the legal-malpractice case was a separate action not originally included in the fee-sharing aggrement. Justice Robert E. Gordon wrote, "Attorneys should act reasonably towards each other…While this court takes note of plaintiffs’ arguments founded in equity that defendants should have paid plaintiffs a portion of the fee, we cannot find a legal basis on which to require defendants to do so." See, Paul B. Episcope Ltd., et al., etc. v. Law Offices of Campbell and DiVincenzo, et al., etc. (I will link to the decision when it is posted on the IL Courts Website) "

This is a law.com subscription site, but the jist is:

"Texas’ 1st Court of Appeals has breathed new life into a quarter-century old legal battle that began when one Houston lawyer agreed to represent a woman seeking to collect on loans she made to another Houston lawyer. Although Carol Whitsett died in 2002, her $6.5 million legal malpractice suit against her former attorney, William E. Junell Jr., and Junell’s former firm, Andrews Kurth, lives on, with the state appeals court ruling that the statute of limitations does not block the continued litigation.

The law.com subscription site.

Here is a fuller story on the legal malpractice bridge.

Toronto-based law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson is being sued by Ambassador Bridge owner and trucking mogul Manuel "Matty" Moroun in U.S. District Court.
According to the Detroit News, bridge execs say the Canadian law firm has jeopardized the Ambassador Bridge’s plan to build a second six-lane span across the Detroit River because one of the firm’s partners is also representing the bridge’s opponents to the plan in Windsor, Ont.

Ambassador execs say a law firm hired to secure funding
for a twin span was also batting for the other side
The law partner named in the suit, environmental expert David Estrin, has asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds to dismiss the suit.

Law.Com reports this case Acosta v. PACE Local I-300 Health Fund, 04-CV-3885

"A New Jersey federal judge’s dismissal of legal malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against counsel in an ERISA case shows that trustees sued for misfeasance can’t easily pass the buck to their lawyers.

Though he dismissed the claims on procedural grounds, U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano held that even if attorney Gary Carlson knew of prohibited transactions and failed to disclose them, the fund’s trustees "cannot show that Carlson’s conduct — rather than that of the actual wrongdoers — was the proximate cause of any losses they allegedly suffered."

Carlson was counsel to the PACE Local I-300 Union and its health fund. The ERISA suit, Acosta v. PACE Local I-300 Health Fund, 04-CV-3885, alleged that the trustees and administrators of the fund drained it of money, paying themselves excessive salaries, leasing fancy cars, using funds for the benefit of the union and other improper purposes. The plaintiffs are hundreds of workers whose health claims went unpaid, the companies they worked for, and health care providers seeking to recover unpaid medical bills.

The trustees, Matthew DiMinno and Allan Funk, turned around and sued Carlson, alleging he was aware of the improper expenditures and had a duty to inform the trustees but failed to do so, resulting in a loss of more than $1 million.

The third-party complaint alleged the failure to act was a breach of fiduciary duty and of legal ethics rules and constituted malpractice by Carlson, his current firm, Kroll Heineman Giblin, and the firm he left in 2004, Lynch Martin.

Here is a case in which a divorce attorney was permitted it attach a lien to the equitable distribution.  Generally, a new "fund" must be created by the attorney’s work [as in a personal injury case with a settlement], but here, the attorney got to attach property which was already the wife’s.

From the NYLJ  Zelman v. Zelman, New York County:

"PLAINTIFF WIFE’S former attorney in an underlying matrimonial action moved to enforce a charging lien which he filed pursuant to Judiciary Law §475, upon plaintiff’s distributive award of equitable distribution. Plaintiff argued the attorney’s efforts on her behalf did not create any new funds in the form of equitable distribution to which a charging lien could attach. She alleged the settlement awarded her equitable distribution equal only to the value of real property she already had legal title to. The attorney calculated that the $1.6 million settlement, awarded to plaintiff, exceeded her share of the actual real estate proceeds by at least $300,000. The court found such calculation reasonable, stating the excess amount represented the creation of a new fund by the attorney’s efforts to which a charging lien may attach. Thus, it granted the motion to enforce a charging lien in the amount of nearly $170,000, referring the matter to a special referee for a hearing to determine the amount of legal fees dues. "

Here is a story which about a legal malpracice suit in Detroit.  Plaintiffs say that one law firm argued in Canada to build a bridge, and in the US to stop the bridge.  The article.

"A two-timing law firm has jeopardized the Ambassador Bridge owner’s $500 million plan to build a second span between Detroit and Windsor, according to federal court records.

Companies owned by bridge mogul Manuel "Matty" Moroun have sued Toronto firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson in U.S. District Court, claiming it represented them while a partner fought the bridge plan on behalf of Windsor officials.

"A lot of firms work for the city, but when you take out a sword and try to hurt me, it’s a problem," said Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Co., which owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge. "We see that as a huge conflict and it ought to stop."

The law partner named in the suit, environmental expert David Estrin, has asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds to dismiss the suit; a response from Moroun’s lawyers is due Feb. 23. "

The lawsuit chronicles an international battle between one of the nation’s largest private companies and one of Canada’s largest law firms and comes amid a U.S. Coast Guard review of Moroun’s plan to add a second span at least six lanes wide on the west side of the Ambassador Bridge.

Will there be an estate of Anna Nicole Smith Legal Malpractice Case.  This particular commentator thinks so. Johanna Grossman of Findlaw thinks so in this article. 

"There were at least two pending lawsuits against her at the time of her death, which will likely now be waged against her estate. Anna Nicole had spent recent months as a spokesperson for TrimSpa, a diet products company. She and TrimSpa are named in a class action lawsuit filed last week, which alleges that they made false or misleading claims about the product’s ability to cause weight reduction. This lawsuit has the potential to deplete Anna Nicole’s estate. Perhaps a loss here could be countered by a victory in yet another lawsuit: a legal malpractice suit brought by Anna Nicole against one of the law firms that has represented her in some of her legal battles. "