Here is an article from Outside Counsel at the NYLJ, by Ronald D. Bratt,a law professor and the principal law clerk to Kings Supreme Justice Arthur M. Schack. It discusses the Ct.App. case in which the complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute. This was not your typical case, and is food for thought. The article.

Here is a case from California, reported by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP: “Lawyer’s Failure to Advise of Non-Representation Created Issue of Fact Regarding Continued Representation

Gabriela Gonzalez vs. Emelikei Kalu, 140 Cal. App. 4th 21, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 866 (June 2006)
The defendant attorney agreed to handle plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim against her employer. The defendant filed an administrative complaint and did nothing further to advance the representation. The plaintiff neither contacted nor attempted to contact the defendant until three years later when she came to his office to retrieve her file for a separate litigation. At that time, she claims to have learned that defendant had not timely prosecuted her action. The California Court of Appeal found triable issues of fact as to when the representation ended for purposes of the “continuous representation” tolling provision under the statute.”

From the NYLJ: “A Manhattan appellate court has dismissed a legal malpractice suit on behalf of an elderly man who claimed his lawyers misled him into signing away control of his estate, but a dissenting judge said the majority’s decision “risks undermining the confidence of the public in the profession.”

Jack E. Maurer, who died last year at age 86, sued the firm formerly known as Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow in 2003 for allegedly failing to explain to him the import of estate planning documents he signed. He also claimed the firm was conflicted because it represented his wife Rona, who he named as a co-defendant in the suit”

In this case Plaintiff gave away a CPW apartment, a house in Quogue and money. Full article.

“Today’s installment of “Your Courts, Their Secrets,” a Seattle Times investigation of inappropriate secrecy in Washington courts” reveals stories that otherwise would never have come to light. One includes a hidden rogue teacher incident. Others, like this story, involves legal actions that keep the public from knowing what government is doing. Other stories have dealt with issues such as medical and legal malpractice, workplace safety and the protection of vulnerable people.

Full story

In days past Boston was known for mayors who served from inside jail. Here is a story in a similar vein. The leader in this judicial campaign may be kept off the bench for a legal malpractice/disciplinary problem.

“A deal struck with a southwest Alabama circuit judge candidate in a disciplinary action concerning his handling of a will does not penalize the candidate harshly enough, the state’s highest court ruled Friday.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision could cost Stuart DuBose his would-be judgeship — all because he wrote a will for a man he never met.

The rejected deal would have allowed DuBose — the unopposed Democratic candidate for the circuit court that covers Choctaw, Clarke and Washington counties — to serve a suspension between the Nov. 7 general election and the date he would be sworn in.

Advertisement

Now, he’ll again have to face the Alabama State Bar disciplinary commission. If he’s found guilty of the complaints and given a suspension of his law license that overlaps either of those two dates, he will not be qualified to serve as judge, according to the Alabama Constitution.

The dispute stems from a 2003 estate case in which DuBose was the attorney.

In that case, Cheryl Weaver visited DuBose and asked him to draw up a will for Joseph J. Sullivan. Weaver, Sullivan’s caretaker, informed DuBose the man was dying and wanted to leave his entire estate to her.

He drafted the will, but never met with the dying man. He also drafted a certificate of competency for Weaver to have signed by the man’s doctor.

According to court documents, Weaver soured on DuBose shortly after Sullivan died. After DuBose clarified in a letter that his cut of the estate was a fee of 40 percent, or about $1.2 million, she fired him as her attorney and tried to drop him as the estate’s lawyer.

Weaver then sued him, accusing him of acting inappropriately, including legal malpractice, misrepresentation, negligently administering the estate and capitalizing on the death by designating himself both the attorney for the estate and Weaver without ever informing her of a potential conflict of interest. That case was tossed out.

When the dispute over the estate was settled, a judge ruled the $1.2 million in fees was “reasonable and necessary” and allowed DuBose to remain the executor of the will.” Full Artile

Lora Kojovic, divorced from Neal Goldman found out one month after signing a divorce settlement that her former husband’s company was worth $18 million. She tried to vacate the settlement, and has now lost in the Appellate Division.

Justice Sullivan says that “The Wife has only herself to blame for her failure to inquire further.”

The lack of financial investigation in high asset divorces frequently comes up in Legal Malpractice cases. Attorneys have an obligation to inquire, investigate and determine the actual value of the spouses’ assets. Failure to do so can and is often compensable in legal malpractice.

Anthony Lin in the NYLJ writes that:

“The church group suing Weil, Gotshal & Manges for allegedly steering it into a “disastrous” bankruptcy is accusing the firm of withholding from discovery e-mail correspondence of the partner who led the 2004 Chapter 11 filing. The St. Louis-based National Benevolent Association, which sued Weil Gotshal in bankruptcy court in Texas last fall, said in a motion filed Oct. 13 that the firm had failed to produce all the e-mails of partner Deryck Palmer, the lead lawyer in the group’s bankruptcy. To support its contention, the nonprofit, which is the social services arm of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), pointed to the variance from the number of pages of e-mails it had received from other individuals in the case, including other Weil Gotshal lawyers. The association said the firm had produced only 650 pages of Mr. Palmer’s e-mails, compared to over 70,000 pages for another partner, Alfredo Perez, and 37,000 pages for a third partner, Nellie Camerik. “There is no reasonable explanation for this discrepancy,” the group said in its motion, “especially in light of the fact that Palmer was NBA’s lead counsel from the inception of Weil’s representation.” But Weil Gotshal general counsel Richard Davis said yesterday that the discrepancy was explained by the partners’ different approaches to document retention. Unlike the other partners cited in the motion, Mr. Palmer did not archive his e-mails, he said, and the firm purged unarchived messages every 90 days. Mr. Davis said he expected the discovery dispute to be settled shortly with that explanation. In its suit, the association claims Mr. Palmer’s “unreasonable negotiating positions” prevented it from reaching an agreement with its creditors to forestall bankruptcy. The nonprofit, which once had 2,500 employees in 20 states and annual revenues and contributions of $145 million, shrank to 365 employees in five facilities after bankruptcy, though it retained a $70 million endowment. Weil Gotshal maintains that the Chapter 11 filing was necessary because the creditors had commenced litigation and were poised to seize the group’s assets. – Anthony Lin