This story has it all. A bigtime politician attorney fundraiser for the Democratic Party, Chicago, a cheated medical school and legal malpractice for the attorney and Kirkland and Ellis. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office here is looking into former Chicago Alderman Bill Singer’s role in a controversial Near North Side land deal in which a local medical school says it was cheated out of millions of dollars.

A source close to the matter says Mr. Singer, a top national Democratic Party fund-raiser and former candidate for mayor, drew federal attention after political insider Stuart Levine recently began cooperating with federal officials on investigations on several matters in which Mr. Levine was involved.” Full Details.

This is a must-read on the issues of statute of limitations and continuous representation an fraud claims. The decision of Judge Griesa admirably and studiously sets forth the history and reasoning behind the statute of limitations, when it accrues, how continuous representation may lenghten the period, and when the attorney-client relationship is over. More than that, it discusses how fraud may be alleged against an attorney in addition to simple legal malpractice.

“Rafter v. Liddle, 05 CV 4296
Decided: August 3, 2006

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Judge Griesa

Pro se plaintiff Marcia Rafter brings this action alleging that defendants, whom she had retained to represent her in a state court employment discrimination action, committed legal malpractice and other wrongful acts in connection with their legal representation of plaintiff

Defendants are the law firm of Liddle & Robinson, LLP, and a number of attorneys who were associated with that firm during the period it represented plaintiff. Liddle & Robinson is the successor-in-interest to defendant Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein, & Robinson (“LOFR”), which was the name of the firm at the time it began representing plaintiff.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on all counts. Defendants argue that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the amended complaint fails to state a claim.

Defendants’ motion relies upon a number of documents not contained in the pleadings and will therefore be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion and has cross-moved for summary judgment on the merits of her claim. In support, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit detailing defendants’ alleged misconduct as well as numerous exhibits, some of which are court documents related to the underlying action.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.” Read the balance of the opinion.

LA police officers were cought on video beating a prisioner. The City paid. LA then fired the police officers. They arbitrated and the City paid. Now it sues its defense attorneys. Details. The law firm is Blecher & Collins

A recent case from the Court of Appeals, published in this weeks advance sheets, discusses, in great legnth and lots of detail, the entire field of res ipsa loquitur. Judge Rosenblat gives a full law review analysis of the principal. This case is a must-read for all trial attorneys. Note the appearance of res ipsa loquitur in Romanian v. Scher, 94 AD2d 549 (2d Dept, 1983).

A very good article in today’s NYLJ, unfortunately not on their daily e-mail or front page, by Craig Ball. This article, entitled “10 Blunders Made During E-Discovery” is a blueprint for the attorney who must deal with e-discovery. The converse for an attorney? Naturally, legal malpractice. This is a field ripe for investigation.

Reported in the Savanah Georgia Morning News, this is an interesting legal malpractice settlement situation. “Lawyers for Savannah attorney Benjamin S. Eichholz are threatening to renege on a settlement of two lawsuits alleging he overcharged a group of his clients, according to documents filed in Chatham County State Court last week.

In response, plaintiffs’ lawyers have asked a judge to enforce the settlement.

They also want the judge to transfer $1 million in settlement funds into a court account to prevent Eichholz’s lawyers from withdrawing the money as threatened.

Two class-action, legal malpractice suits were filed charging Eichholz and his law firm overstated the amount of expenses incurred in their respective personal injury cases.” Full Details.

Here is a case from the NJ Supreme Court, discussing statutes of limitation, discovery periods, and the last date upon which plaintiff may institute suit.

This Madison WI attorney took the case, ignorred the case, allowed the statute of limitations to run, told the client it was settled for $10,000 and then admitted her wrong. Now she settled for $165,000 and has taken a 60 day suspension. Details.