Disbarred attorney "Bubba" Haupt has caused another attorney to be suspended. "Richmond Hill attorney Murl "Gene" Geary has been suspended from practice for a year for mishandling a case with disbarred lawyer Reginald "Bubba" Haupt. :  The underlying case was a legal malpractice.  Here is the Savannah Morning News article.

The New York Post reports that Anonymous Judge threatened well known attorney Ravi Batra for bringing a legal malpractice case against an attorney who later became a judge. 

Anonymous Judge threatend "that he would never win another motion or case in Manhattan again because of his lawsuit against now-Judge George Silver.   Batra made the accusation in a motion to move his case to Staten Island.

His malpractice suit was filed on behalf of a woman named Margherita Merola, who’s suing Silver and his former law partner, Steve Santo. She accused them of fumbling a lawsuit and then trying to cover it up with faked court documents. "

The NY Times reports that Mr. Batra is well known to judges in NY and has on ocassion defended them.  

Who is Anonymous Judge????   The NY Post article identifies Anonymous Judge as a "her."    The case is assigned to Justice Braun, indisputably a male.  Who is Anonymous Judge?

Here is the legal malpractice case from the biggest verdicts in Kansas of last year.

"•$3 million in a breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice claim against Sanford Krigel and Krigel & Krigel.

The plaintiff alleged she hired the defendants after she decided to give up her baby for adoption. The defendants also represented the adopting couple. After the plaintiff gave birth, she decided to keep the baby, but the adoption went ahead. Krigel claimed that he referred the plaintiff to another attorney and did not work for her. Other lawyers involved in the case settled before trial for undisclosed amounts. "

Here is a decision from Justice Diamond in New York County, dismissing a legal malpractice case on collateral estoppel.  Tydings v, Greenfield, Stein & Senior LLP.  The case is reported in today’s NYLJ [subscription].

"It is ordered that: This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff Frieda Tydings is a former trustee of an irrevocable inter vivos trust created in 1993 by and for the benefit of an individual named Ricki Singer. On January 1, 1997, plaintiff resigned as trustee and was replaced by a successor. On August 21, 2003, Singer commenced a proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, in which she sought a compulsory accounting from both plaintiff and the successor trustee. Plaintiff retained the defendant law firm, Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP, to represent her in the accounting action. Plaintiff claims that defendant never filed an answer or any other response to Singer’s petition for a compulsory accounting and that, as a result, on September 24, 2003, the Surrogate’s Court issued an order requiring her to provide an accounting. Thereafter, defendant withdrew as plaintiff’s counsel in the Surrogate’s Court proceeding and plaintiff filed a final accounting on November 14, 2004.

On November 16, 2005, Singer filed objections to plaintiff’s accounting and sought to charge plaintiff with respect to matters that occurred before her resignation as trustee in 1997. Plaintiff, through her new counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the objections, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), on the ground that the six-year statute of limitations for accounting actions had expired prior to the filing of Singer’s petition to compel an accounting. On January 27, 2006, the Surrogate’s Court (Renee Roth, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that (1) the accounting six-year statute of limitations had not yet expired by the filing date of the petition and (2) plaintiff waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to assert it in a timely manner. See In re Singer, 12 Misc3d 621, 624-26 (Surr’s Ct NY Co 2006). On appeal, the order was affirmed solely on the issue of waiver. See In re Singer, 30 AD3d 211 (1st Dept 2006). The First Department did not address the issue of whether the plaintiff’s statute of limitations defense would have been valid if it had been timely asserted. This legal malpractice action then followed. The defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1), (5) and (7), on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action and/or is barred by collateral estoppel. "

"One of three lawyers accused of plundering Kentucky’s $200 million fen-phen settlement said he and his colleagues "tore up or burned" notes showing how much they paid themselves and their clients.

Depositions obtained by The Courier-Journal include Lexington attorney Melbourne Mills Jr.’s description of a meeting that he said he and lawyers William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr., also of Lexington, held at Gallion’s house in 2001 to divvy up an extra $10 million beyond what they’d already paid themselves from the settlement. ""She has asked that those lawyers and another attorney, Stan Chesley of Cincinnati, who helped negotiate the settlement, be forced to surrender $62.6 million in funds as well as $59.5 million they paid themselves in fees. "

Thearticle.

Here is a sad case from New Jersey.  Attorney Luhn is found to be a compusive gambler, an embezzeler, a bankrupt and, still, the legal malpractice plaintiff had to go through a full trial and appeal to get his monies back. 

"Based upon his findings, Judge Gilroy concluded that Luhn breached a professional duty of care to plaintiff which proximately caused plaintiff’s damages, namely the loss of his investment. The judge concluded that, while Luhn’s breach of duty may not have been the only proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss, it was a substantial factor. The judge found the Courter firm vicariously liable because of its master-servant relationship with Luhn, and because Luhn was plainly acting within the scope of his employment with the Courter firm. ""Luhn did not disclose that he was a compulsive gambler.""In 1997, Luhn’s partners in the new firm discovered that he was embezzling funds""Luhn and his wife filed a petition in bankruptcy, resulting in an automatic stay of this action with respect to them""Luhn and his wife filed a petition in bankruptcy, resulting in an automatic stay of this action with respect to them"

Plaintiff finally won a judgment, along with legal fees.  The NJ case.

Chron Com reports:  "Houston-based law firm Andrews Kurth has agreed to pay Enron’s bankruptcy estate $18.5 million to settle potential malpractice claims stemming from legal advice on various transactions.

Enron’s estate never actually sued Andrews Kurth for allegedly signing off on dubious deals, and the law firm denies any wrongdoing in its work for the company.

"As noted in the motion that was filed yesterday with the bankruptcy court, we have continuously denied wrongdoing and culpability with respect to our work for Enron," Andrews Kurth managing partner Howard Ayres said in a statement today. "We felt, though, after the passage of five years, that it was expedient to enter into the settlement to put this matter behind us."

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez must approve the accord. "  The entire article.

"The former Citigroup broker for convicted WorldCom chief executive Bernard J. Ebbers is suing Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, claiming the law firm was conflicted when it advised Citigroup on the broker’s severance package.

David H. Trautenberg, the former co-head of the bank’s private wealth management group, was a significant figure in litigation arising from WorldCom’s collapse, having orchestrated massive loans for Ebbers’ personal account. Shareholders and regulators had accused Citigroup of offering such perks as well as favorable research coverage in order to maintain its position as WorldCom’s chief investment bank. The bank ultimately paid close to $3 billion to settle claims relating to WorldCom.

Paul Weiss defended Citigroup against shareholder and government suits, representing Trautenberg in his capacity as a bank employee. In a suit filed last month in Manhattan federal court, Trautenberg claims the firm and partners Brad S. Karp and Daniel J. Toal gained confidences in the course of that representation which it then used against him in subsequent negotiations over his 2004 departure from Citigroup.

"Defendants were blinded to their fiduciary duty to Trautenberg by the legal fees they were receiving from Citigroup and its subsidiaries well in excess of $100,000,000," the complaint claims. Trautenberg, who received a $5 million severance payment, claims he would have received $25 million but for Paul Weiss’ involvement. He is seeking $80 million in damages from the firm. "  The story.