Dallas based Strasburger & Price is defendant in a class action law suit. Here is the info from Law.Com. “Dallas-based Strasburger & Price is embroiled in a class action suit in which the firm and one of its partners are accused of helping clients defraud hundreds of investors through what the plaintiffs allege was an “oil and gas Ponzi scheme.”

And the Strasburger partner named as a defendant was a defendant in a similar suit before.

The plaintiff class originally filed Downie, et al. v. Strasburger & Price and Lee Polson in Austin state district court on Aug. 10. But on Sept. 15, the defendants removed the suit to U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ court.

In their 30-page original state court petition, the plaintiffs describe the suit as “yet another” example of lawyers accused of assisting clients to defraud investors. ” Full article

Conflict of interest between a race car enthusiast, a NASCAR event, and the legal field, has led to a legal malpractice case, and an enviromental pollution case. “Since 2004, the city has settled with many businesses, including the Lodi News-Sentinel. Other parties are in negotiations, and water rates have been raised to pay for the city’s portion of the cleanup. That rate increase has become an election issue and a measure to reverse it will go to the voters in November.

“Former City Attorney Randy Hays allowed a Lodi businessman to support a car racing venture Hays operated with his son — though the businessman was clearly targeted as a potential defendant in the city’s pollution lawsuit.
In the meantime, the city has filed a malpractice lawsuit against Donovan. His firm was paid roughly $15 million in fees, though he has counter-sued and claims the city owes him another $14 million in unpaid fees.

Donovan acknowledged in a deposition last month that his law firm sponsored Hays’ son’s race car.” Full article

We reported this several weeks ago. Client is told that defendant attorney is suspended and penniless, and settles case for $ 2000. Then she find out he is the highest paid mental hygiene attorney in West Virginia. Now she and another are trying to get the case re-opened and claim some of those earnings. Details

Everyone thinks about legal malpractice. It is the metafor for a mistake of the most fundimental sort during a cognative process. Whew! What it really means is that people think of legal malpractice as a wrong turn in the very center of helping another person. Here a nurse consultant believes that in the future they will be a necessary part of a personal injury or medical malpractice case. Don’t have one on yours? Its legal mal! “I even see a day when it will be considered legal malpractice for an attorney not to have legal nurse consultants working behind the scenes on their cases.”
Details.

We find this report shocking. Coudert Brothers files bankruptcy over a $2.5 million legal malpractice verdict. Questions: No Insurance? No income? What could have happened to this ancient firm?

“Defunct firm Coudert Brothers is nearing its official end after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court late on Friday.

In a petition, the firm stated that it did not have sufficient funds to post appeal bonds to challenge two court judgments against it, including a $2.5m award in a legal malpractice suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.”

Nevertheless, it seems that CB has sold its holdings, turned its overseas offices over to others, lost its partners, and now, turns to bankruptcy. Pity the last successful litigant against them! Details.

The NYLJ today reports that the New York Court of Appeals will hear a case of legal malpractice dismissed by Justice York and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. This is most unusual!

“The Court of Appeals yesterday agreed to review a case where a legal malpractice claim against Davis Polk & Wardwell was thrown out and the firm was awarded more than $1.4 million in fees. It granted leave to AmBase Corp., which had been represented by Davis Polk in a tax dispute. AmBase had sued for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, but its complaint was dismissed by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Louis B. York (See Profile), who also awarded legal fees to Davis Polk. Justice York’s decision was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department, on June 1. Yesterday, the Court agreed to hear the appeal.” – John Caher

New sites allowing consumers to rate doctors, lawyers and others are popping up. Here is a short blurb from the International Herald Journal on the phenominon. “The phenomenon began with Web sites like RateMyProfessors.com, which lets American college students evaluate faculty by posting anonymous comments that are often entertaining and sometimes scathing.

Now, in hopes of repeating the success of RateMyProfessors.com and RateMyTeachers.com, which caters to middle and high school students, the world of online ratings has expanded to law, medicine, car repair, summer camps, child-care centers, real estate agents, nightclubs and beyond with forums where the public can anonymously rate businesses and professionals.” Article

This nightmare ranks with being naked in school, losing your homework, etc. Here the lawyer was late in filing with the US Supreme Court. How much worse can it get? “Every lawyer’s nightmare — inadvertently missing a court filing deadline — has come true for Roy Englert Jr. Adding to the pain is that the court whose deadline he missed is the Supreme Court, where such mistakes tend to get noticed more than they might elsewhere.” Details

A case before Justice Cahn in Supreme Court, New York County, reported today in the NYLJ continues after an unsuccessful summary judgment decision. “DEFENDANT LAW firm moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim, including legal malpractice, arguing it neither knew of nor represented the parties in the transaction involving Voluto and plaintiff’s independent actions constituted an intervening cause. Plaintiff alleged defendant committed malpractice by failing to advise her of the risk of pursuing the purchase of a mortgage lien and by failing to advise her of the impending sale of the subject real estate to a third party after defendant extended the owner’s time to find a buyer, which prevented plaintiff from buying the property. The court found questions of fact existed as to the impact defendant’s parallel strategy for purchasing the mortgage may have had on the negotiations for plaintiff’s purchase of the Chelsea Mansions. It noted whether defendant’s entering into a stipulation extending the owner’s time to find a buyer for the property prevented plaintiff from buying it, and if so, whether such extension was malpractice, was an issue of fact and law, denying defendant summary judgment on the malpractice claim.”