Bronx family hires out of state attorney in a big negligence case. He works with Bronx attorney. After successful settlement, the AD says that Bronx attorney should be sanctioned for his behavior.

“A Bronx judge has sanctioned a personal injury lawyer and his firm $15,000 over their attempts to keep a $574,000 attorney’s fee for themselves, despite a written agreement to divide the fee equally with out-of-state co-counsel.

The parents of Marek Leskinen, a brain-damaged infant, retained Maryland lawyer Dov Apfel in 1997 to represent them in a medical malpractice suit against Lawrence Hospital in the Bronx. Mr. Apfel, who is not admitted to practice in New York, in turn brought in David M. Shearer of Shearer & Essner of Manhattan to act as local counsel.

Their 1997 agreement stated that the two would split attorney’s fees equally and Mr. Shearer would take steps to have Mr. Apfel admitted pro hac vice. But the latter was never admitted and Mr. Shearer handled the suit from its 1998 filing to its July 2003 settlement for $4.5 million.

The steps Mr. Shearer thereafter took to shut Mr. Apfel out of a share of the attorney’s fee constituted “frivolous conduct” and misrepresentations to the court meriting sanction, Bronx Supreme Court Justice Betty Owen Stinson ruled in two simultaneous Oct. 10 decisions in Leskinen v. Fusco, 15135/98.”

Client was part of a class action in mold/toxic condition case. As it turns out, her claims were time barred, yet because she was part of a package deal, defendants paid little attention to her individual case, and settled. After settlement, she sued attorneys. Case was dismissed. Details.

You don’t get much more tabloid than this. Michael Jackson responds to an attorney fee case with a legal malpractice defense. His claim? “Michael Jackson Sues Former Lawyers

October 17, 2006 7:27 p.m. EST

Josephine Roque – All Headline News Staff Writer
Los Angeles, California (AHN) – Michael Jackson is charging his former attorneys for conspiracy to have him put into involuntary bankruptcy.

In the papers, Jackson accused former attorneys Ayscough and Marar of “approaching other lawyers” who represented Jackson “in an effort to get such lawyers to join [with them] in forcing Jackson into involuntary bankruptcy …”

Jackson also cited claims that former attorney Brent Ayscough threatened to leak confidential information about him to the press, broke rules of professional conduct and committed acts of negligence and malpractice.

A month earlier, Ayscough sued Jackson $216,000 in back fees.

Ayscough also revealed many of Jackson’s debts that were printed by the media.

According to sources, Jackson financial concerns are are precarious, with his annual royalty income from his hit songs totaling to $7 million or $3.5 million after taxes. ”

Article

It seems that the attorney here is the only innocent party. A phony law firm, fake lawyers, and lots of money stolen. “Family Admits Bilking $14 Million Through Phony Law Firm

Four members of a Staten Island family have pleaded guilty in connection with charges that they cheated homeowners and investors of $14 million in a variety of schemes through a fraudulently established law firm. Tina and James LaForte and their sons, Joseph and James Jr., admitted that they established a Long Island-based law office, Joseph LaMattina and Associates, in March 2004. Through the firm, the family members acted as a settlement agent for lending institutions that were funding mortgages to homeowners and used a fraudulently obtained trust account to pay for a 37-foot boat and luxury cars, and to invest in Florida real estate. Joseph LaMattina, a Staten Island defense attorney, is a relative of the family. Prosecutors also alleged that $250,000 was stolen to make mortgage payments. Mr. and Mrs. LaForte pleaded guilty in exchange for probation. Their sons pleaded guilty to the entire indictment, which included multiple counts of grand larceny, money laundering and conspiracy. James Jr. faces 4 to 12 years in prison; Joseph faces 3 to 9 years. Additional defendants charged in the case also pleaded guilty. – Beth Bar [NYLJ].”

Phen-Fen litigation gave rise to a big big fund. $200 million settled the case, but here the lawyers held onto about $126 million.”About 400 people should receive nearly $20 million held in a controversial fund controlled by three Lexington, Ky., lawyers in a lawsuit over the diet drug fen-phen, a judge has ruled.

Special Judge William Wehr last week ordered that funds from the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, which was set up using money from a $200 million settlement in Boone Circuit Court, be placed in a trust for the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, all of whom said they suffered medical problems because they took the diet drug.

Lawyers and consultants involved in the lawsuit received $106 million collectively of a $200 million settlement and also set aside $20 million of the settlement to create the nonprofit fund. The lawyers received roughly $20 million each.

Details.

Here is a wonderful case. In short, criminal defendant had lots of $$ in offshore accounts, and the US wanted it. US got part, and criminal tried to hide rest. US found it, and criminal sues his attorney for not telling the US about the $$. His theory? If attorney had told US about the $$ they would not have started a forfeiture action. Details.

Good cause for termination is not the same as malpractice. Attorney malpractice, the deviation from good and accepted practice, which proximately damaged the party, in which, but for the negligence of the attorney there would have been a different or better result is not the same as good cause for termination. Termination for cause has arisen in many situations in which malpractice was not even discussed, much less claimed. Substantial delays in prosecuting the case, failure timely to obtain medical records, failure to retain an employment [which] contravenes specific legal requirements is sufficient, abandonment of a case, a conflict of interest, a refusal personally to try a case, a failure to disclose a settlement offer, are all examples of misconduct which does not amount to malpractice.

The difference flows logically from the question of damages. In malpractice there is a positive claim for damages, over and above fee considerations from the attorneys; in the question of termination for cause, there can be but a reduction of the fees paid, but no positive claim for damages. As one might expect, the burden of proof for malpractice requires much more than the burden of proof to decide between “good cause” and “no cause.”