This took several readings but the scholarly article seems to say that there have been changes in Kentucky tax law, and that LLCs and other statutory entities may need to be changed, and that attorneys who advised clients to use these entities now need to tell the former clients that changes have to be made.  Read the abstract.

We can’t tell if this is accurate, inaccurate or simply a rant.  It’s a story about asbestos litigation, legal malpractice, and the banning of a law firm from filing asbestos cases in a prime California venue.  Read for yourself.

"Houston’s Vinson & Elkins, longtime outside counsel for Enron Corp., was dismissed from a massive shareholder securities class action filed by disgruntled Enron shareholders.

In an order signed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon of Houston dismissed a number of other defendants from the class action, which is set for trial in April, including former Enron executives Lou Pai, Kenneth Rice, Joseph Hirko, Kevin Hannon and Lawrence Greg Whalley. She also dismissed the estate of former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, who died in July 2006 after he was convicted in federal court of criminal charges stemming from the collapse of Enron.

Harmon’s order grants a motion filed by the plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss V&E and the others from Mark Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., which seeks billions of dollars in damages from Enron-related defendants. "

"This legal malpractice action arises out of defendants’ representation of plaintiff and his wife in an action brought by plaintiff’s former landlord, Solow Management Corp. (Solow) to recover, among other things, rent arrears in the amount of $180,313.57.

To prevail in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants "failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, and that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action" (see Laventure v. Galeno, 307 AD2d 255 [2nd Dept. 2003]).

In the case at bar, there is no question that defendants’ negligently prepared and filed the CPLR3219 tenders. A trial court of coordinate jurisdiction and the Appellate Division has already ruled as such. This court is not going to entertain arguments made by defendants to the contrary. Here, no issue of facts exists, the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that "but for" the negligence of the defendants, they would not have incurred certain damages in the underlying action. Moreover, the discovery requested by the defendants in opposition to plaintiff’s motion is without merit. "

"An attorney who allegedly hired an investigator to locate and solicit accident victims then failed to pay the investigator’s finder’s fee has successfully moved to dismiss the investigator’s suit for non-payment on the grounds of illegality.

"The agreement alleged by plaintiff is one between a nonlawyer and attorneys to split legal fees which is proscribed by Judiciary Law §491," a unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel held in Bonilla v. Rotter, 9806. "Accordingly, the agreement is illegal and plaintiff is foreclosed from seeking the assistance of the courts in enforcing it."

"An attorney who allegedly hired an investigator to locate and solicit accident victims then failed to pay the investigator’s finder’s fee has successfully moved to dismiss the investigator’s suit for non-payment on the grounds of illegality.

"The agreement alleged by plaintiff is one between a nonlawyer and attorneys to split legal fees which is proscribed by Judiciary Law §491," a unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel held in Bonilla v. Rotter, 9806. "Accordingly, the agreement is illegal and plaintiff is foreclosed from seeking the assistance of the courts in enforcing it."

"A tenant who lost her suit against the owners and managers of the apartment complex at which she was raped has a viable malpractice claim against the lawyers who represented her in the matter, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

After initially meeting with Kelegian, she saw him only on one other occasion, her deposition, she claimed. When she showed up to court for trial as instructed in a letter from Kelegian, the lawyer never arrived and left her to wait for three hours before she finally learned her case had been dismissed.

The lawyers moved for summary judgment, claiming that Ambriz could not have established Casa Escondida owed her a duty to better secure the premises from intruders in any event, and thus they could not be liable for malpractice.

Stern agreed, finding Ambriz did not proffer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue as to whether the complex’s failure to properly maintain its doors and locks was a substantial fact in causing her injury.

But Justice Aaron, writing for the court, said:

“In view of the repeated security breaches and the known presence of unauthorized male intruders, a violent attack by an intruder was sufficiently foreseeable that Casa Escondida had a minimal duty to properly maintain the locks on the doors and gates to the complex and its buildings.”

The case is Ambriz v. Kelegian, D046453. "

Strange $54 Million Fee-Split Saga Haunts Thelen

"Secrets, lies and betrayal are the heart of any good story.

Add an itinerant Frenchman with dark secrets and a powerful American law firm — first fighting together to expose millions of dollars in fraud, now locked in bitter battle of money and ethics themselves — and you’ve got an epic.

The long-running saga began with allegations of French banks secretively, and illegally, buying a California insurer. It has devolved into a battle over millions of dollars because of shifting — and questionable — fee-splitting deals between Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner and the informant it once represented.

Last February, Francois Marland, the French lawyer and holder of secrets, demanded arbitration over the fee-sharing deal. Thelen, represented by top-flight litigators at Keker & Van Nest, has responded with a lawsuit to cut him off. The showdown trial is scheduled for this summer in the Northern District of California.

At issue is $54 million that the law firm (then Thelen Reid & Priest) was paid for its work in a case that wrought a $715 million payout from a consortium of French bankers in 2005. The fee-sharing agreement in the dispute has raised the hackles of legal ethicists, who say some provisions skate dangerously close to buying Marland’s testimony.

According to filings made in Thelen’s suit, Marland has been paid $19 million of Thelen’s fees. Still, he accuses Thelen of betraying him with another client and putting the firm’s interests ahead of his. He’s looking for $35 million or a greater cut of the contingency fee.

Thelen’s suit claims it doesn’t owe him anything else and wants the court to uphold the latest draft of Marland’s fee agreement "

Daniel. Sheehan recently earned selection to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America list.

"In addition to his dual Lawdragon honors, Mr. Sheehan has been named a Texas Super Lawyer in Texas Monthly magazine each of the past four years. Super Lawyers are selected by their peers and represent the top 5% of attorneys in Texas. His many awards are supported by his achievements in the courtroom. Mr. Sheehan has obtained more than a dozen seven-figure verdicts in business litigation. In the past five years alone, he has collected more than $23 million for clients in seven major legal malpractice cases.

Mr. Sheehan is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He regularly handles trials and appeals in state and federal courts, including cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court.  $ 23 Million!