One of the more intriguing aspects of the attorney fee and disputes field is the interplay of a strongly put rule to attorneys, and the consequences of ignoring that rule.  The rule:  "You must have a retainer agreement."  What happens when an attorney sues for fees, yet failed to have a retainer agreement as defined

New York corporation has a California case.  An attorney comes calling, soliciting business and asking the corporation to hire the California attorney.  They agree, and in the retainer agreement are two items.  One is a jurisdiction choice and one is an arbitration clause.  Problems arise, and a fee dispute/legal malpractice counterclaim starts.  Will it be

The rapid transferring back and forth of rights and liabilities, through assignments, factoring and bankruptcy is highlighted in Maggioni v Clyde Meredith Schaefer, Esq., NY SlipOp 32544 [Sup.Ct. New York County, Wooten. J]   

Apparently IFT International Inc. was a worthwhile football.  It and its assets bounced back and forth between Bankruptcy Court and Supreme Court, with

Gatto v Burke & Burke, NY Slip Op 32511, Nassau County, Justice Bucaria illustrates a two part transactional represent ion by attorneys of the clients in a  business sale case.  Facts are simple:  plaintiff sells restaurant to X and uses target attorneys as transactional counsel.  Sale documents do not have a security interest for Plaintiff-seller. 

We have commented about the Collateral Estoppel trap in legal malpractice with regard to fee arbitrations and hearings. in short, when a court grants an attorney fee application, it implicitly determines that there can have been no malpractice, as the court may not award fees in the face of malpractice. Fee arbitrations and hearings in