Anthony Lin reports today in the NYLJ on a case in which a departing attorney used the firm logo on his retainer agreement, and other forms. Jacoby & Myers formally dissolved in 1999 [don’t they still advertise?], and one of the attorneys earlier involved continued to use the logo.

Plaintiff’s case was never filed, and she sued Jacoby & Myers as well as the attorney to whom she was referred. Result? Plaintiff fails to keep J & M in the case. Her attorney had no comment.

The Illinois Legal Malpractice Blog reports a legal malpractice case which turns on whether an act declared unconstitutional was void ab initio or allowed for a reasonable time thereafter to remedy a late complaint.

The legal malpractice case was timely if filed under th new law. The trouble: this new law was declared unconstitutional. The complaint was filed several weeks later, probably relying on the extra time allowed by the statute. Would plaintiff be allowed the complaint or not?

The court allowed a reasonable time to file a complaint, even though late if analyzed under the old law. Details.

1. Solon v. Tormey, 1542 CA 04-02353 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 891; February 3, 2006, Decided,
Question: Did the plaintiff investigate this case at all? Plaintiff accuses attorney of conversion of 400,000 shares of stock in a gas corporation that had been entrusted to him to hold for a decedent. The attorney, however, delivered the shares to a Federal District Court judge for exchange pursuant to a settlement of decedent’s pre-death case. The attorney, having done exactly what the stipulation required, and having actually delivered the stock to a Federal Judge was nevertheless sued. Case dismissed.

2. Edwards v. Siegel, Kelleher & Kahn & Mark G. Hirschorn, 139 CA 05-01489 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT February 3, 2006,6, Entered, Here is a highly unusual case for two reasons. First, it appears that plaintiff filed bankruptcy, and while unstated, apparently did not obtain permission from the trustee to bring this action; second, plaintiff prevails on arguments made for the first time on appeal, namely that defendants did not move to dismiss for lack of capacity. A very strange decision, and the legal malpractice case continues.

3.SEROVA v. TEPLEN, No. 05 CIV. 6748 (HB), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Dist. February 16, 2006, Decided Here is a Federal legal malpractice case arising from immigration representation. Plaintiff is a Russian national who was induced to invest about a million dollars in hopes of obtaining a treaty investor visa. The quest failed. The defendant attorney induced plaintiff to invest in a “friend’s” company, and everything went wrong. This case discusses punitive damages, Judiciary Law section 487 and several other interesting issues.

4. RUBENS v. ROY L. MASON & MORGAN SHELSBY CARLO DOWNS & EVERTON, 01 Civ. 5004 (DC), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Dist. February 15, 2006, Decided, February 15, 2006, Filed. Motion for summary judgment in a case where defendant attorneys took over a very complex Dalkon Shield case from predecessor attorneys just weeks before an arbitration. The claim was for a Dalkon shield inserted 25 years prior and removed 12 years prior, and involved a host of interesting issues.

5. Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 02 Civ. 9913 (JES) , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK , 404 F. Supp. 2d 540; 2005 U.S. Dist. December 12, 2005, Decided,

In a class action, involving legal malpractice the District court enforced an injunction order prohibiting contact of class members.

In a short squib, the New York Law Journal reports that Paul Weiss, Rikind Wharton & Garrison LLP has agreed to pay a part of the settlement of the “Boston Chicken Bankruptcy” case, stating that it decided to “forego the time, attention, resources and risk inherent in litigating and to participate in the global settlement.”

That’s a mouthful. What it means is that in the case of Toste Farm v. Battle Fowler, in New York County, the defendant attorneys may have “lulled” plaintiffs into deferring claims until far later than three years after the end of the attorney-client relationship. Anthony Lin reports in the NYLJ Battle Fowler, now Paul, Hastings offered to make plaintiffs whole in return for a promise not to sue them. Plaintiffs followed the advice and sued other parties. Plaintiffs now say that Battle Fowler reneged. The case continues, and the statute of limitations motion failed.