Thursday Attorney Malpractice Update 7/03/08
Posted: July 3rd, 2008
By: Andrew Bluestone, Esq.
Category: Attorney Malpractice

More Conflict of Interest in a Penn Legal Malpractice Case

The Times Leader reports on a $ 3.4 Million legal malpractice action taking place there, now, post verdict.  The twist is that the winner of the case, executor of an estate had asked the trial judge to recuse himself because of financial conflict of interest.

"Attorneys for the Slusser family have asked Luzerne County Court to deny a petition filed by attorneys for Laputka, Bayless, Ecker and Cohn that seeks to overturn a $3.4 million legal malpractice judgment against the law firm.

In court papers filed Monday, attorneys Stephen Seach and Jonathan Lang of the Robert Powell law firm said that state law orders the judgment should stand.

Because the petition “lacks merit” court papers said, the judgment should be final and “not be subject to reconsideration,” according to state law.

The case has since been sent to the state Supreme Court, which will assign a judge outside Luzerne County to hear any further matters in the case. Court Administrator William Sharkey filed papers last week asking for the move.

A spokesman for the state Supreme Court said a judge has not yet been assigned.

The Slusser family sued the Laputka firm in 2000, alleging the firm was negligent in its handling of its estate.

In February, a jury awarded Bernadette Slusser, executor of the estate of Thomas Slusser, $3.4 million.

The ongoing civil case has received much attention since Philadelphia attorney Jeffrey B. McCarron of Philadelphia accused Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Ciavarella of having a conflict of interest in the case.

McCarron said Ciavarella’s financial relationship with a company partly owned by Luzerne County Prothonotary Jill Moran, an attorney with the Powell law firm, calls into question his ability to impartially rule on the case.

Ciavarella has since recused himself from the case.

Sometimes An Expert is Not Necessary in Legal Malpractice

This case from New Jersey illustrates the border line between behavior that is so bad that an expert is not needed at trial to testify on whether there was a deviation, and behavior that is bad, but still requires an expert. The NJ court found in TARUTIS, v. ALAN ACKERMAN and GREGORY WISOTSKY, that:

"No expert is needed "where the questioned conduct presents such an obvious breach of an equally obvious professional norm that the fact-finder could resolve the dispute based on its own ordinary knowledge and experience and without resort to technical or esoteric information." Brach Eichler, supra, 345 N.J. Super. at 12. For example, no expert testimony was required when the attorney entirely failed to submit a legal argument in his client's defense, Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J. Super. 1, 8-12 (App. Div. 1996), or where the attorney failed to comply with the controlling statute of limitations, Brizak v. Needle, 239 N.J. Super. 415, 429, 431-33 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 164 (1990). "

But, where the defendant attorney "did not retain an expert to testify to the coefficient of friction of the floor, nor did he propound interrogatories, depose any witnesses, request documents, or request admissions from Resorts" the legal malpractice client still needs an expert to testify that the attorney was negligent.

Waiving Arbitration in Legal Malpractice

Arbitration clauses in attorney-client retainer agreements is a trend.  Law firms, who presumably know the costs and efficiencies of litigation choose arbitration in the belief that most cases they are involved in will be a fee dispute.  Legal malpractice, either as a counterclaim to a fee demand or on its own does sometimes intrude, however.

Here is a case from the Illinois Appellate Lawyer  Blog which shows how to waive the advantage obtained by an arbitration clause:
"Jeffrey Woods and three associated parties had a dispute with the Patterson Law firm. The law firm claimed Woods et al. owed $47,000 for legal fees; Woods claimed the law firm committed legal malpractice. The law firm sued for the fees, but voluntarily dismissed its case. Woods then sued for malpractice.

In the malpractice case, the law firm raised an affirmative defense that its agreement with Woods required arbitration of “[a]ny controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to our fees, charges, performance of legal services …” But the firm also made two motions to dismiss the case, filed a demand for a bill of particulars, served interrogatories on plaintiff, and issued a subpoena for documents to a third-party.

After all that, the firm asked the court to compel arbitration of the dispute. The trial court ruled that the law firm waived its right to compel arbitration because it participated so heavily in Woods’s lawsuit. The law firm appealed the denial of its attempt to compel the arbitration.
The appeal was pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a), which permits interlocutory appeals as of right from an order granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction. The First District Illinois Appellate Court ruled that “a motion to compel arbitration is analogous to a motion for injunctive relief," and that the standard of review is “abuse of discretion.”

Legal Malpractice Suit After a Release

Plaintiff wanted to sue his opponent's attorneys. While the ability to sue your opponent's attorney is very restricted, [see: lack of privity}, in certain circumstances it is possible. This case:

Blum v Perlstein
2008 NY Slip Op 00439
Decided on January 22, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department

appears to stand for the proposition that plaintiff had no legal malpractice case against the defendants, who were not his attorneys. Supreme Court dismissed that aspect of the case, and the Appellate Division agreed. However, the AD went on to dismiss the non-legal malpractice portions, which included breach of fiduciary duty, on the basis that a release of the original defendant in the case, and his "agents" included a release of the attorneys.

"the defendants demonstrated that the allegedly improper conduct that they engaged in, which predated a general release that the plaintiff executed before he commenced the instant action, came within the ambit of that release. The defendants also demonstrated that the release applied to them, as they represented the releasee, and the plaintiff discharged the releasee and its "agents" from liability (see Berkowitz v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, 7 AD3d 385, 387; Argyle Capital Mgt. Corp. v Lowenthal, Landau, Fischer & Brings, P.C., 261 AD2d 282)."

Morris J. Eisen Legal Malpractice Case Proceeds

He was one of the best known, and feared plaintiff's attorneys in New York.  He had entire floors of offices at the Woolworth building in lower Manhattan, and early every morning a large number of trial attorneys would gather for breakfast and pick up their day's work.  The Eisen and Napoli firm won gazillions of dollars in verdicts until it all ended.
Eisen has been pursuing a legal malpractice case against his own former attorneys for years, and yesterday the Court of Appeals gave it a green light to continue. 

The NYLJ reports:  "The Court of Appeals yesterday revived a legal malpractice suit against law firm Larossa, Mitchell & Ross over its representation of a personal injury lawyer found to have defrauded New York City by fabricating evidence in tort cases.

The suit, which was previously dismissed because Larossa's ex-client was in dissolution, cannot now be barred on res judicata grounds against a successor firm, the court ruled.

The case stems from the travails of the law firm Morris J. Eisen PC. Once one of the New York's top personal injury firms, the firm was accused by the city of falsifying evidence in a 1986 civil suit. Seven lawyers and investigators for the firm, including Morris J. Eisen, were subsequently targeted by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and convicted on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act charges in 1991.

Mr. Eisen had been represented in the criminal case by James M. Larossa, and the Larossa firm also represented the Eisen firm in the civil suit by the city. Eisen first tried to bring a legal malpractice suit against Larossa after a court granted partial summary judgment to the city on its fraud claims. The city was awarded $2.1 million.

The suit claimed Larossa did not adequately oppose the city's summary judgment motion, failing to present evidence that would have shown that, notwithstanding any false testimony, the city was actually responsible for the injuries in the cases at issue.

Post a Comment   |   (0) Comments  |   Permanent Link  Go Back

Comments
There are no comments for this post.