THIS WEEKS CASES IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE

A World Wide Conspiracy and Legal Malpractice

Reading this case, in which there is an ancillary legal malpractice case, reminded us of the ubiquitous nature of legal malpractice.  This case, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, - against - STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.07 Civ. 11196 (SAS);  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61269August 8, 2008, Decided   August 8, 2008, Filed  makes for fascinating reading.  Just look how it starts:
 
Plaintiff: "This action presents a dramatic story of intrigue, car bombing, conspiracy, video technology, and murder. In short, plaintiffs allege that hundreds of defendants engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate their civil rights and, in the process, contributed to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush. In plaintiffs' words:
Plaintiffs depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric, and becomes the litmus test, of what has come to be known as free commerce through inventors' rights and due process in this country, and in that the circumstances involve inventors' rights tears at the very fabric of the Democracy protected under the Constitution of the United States."

Defendants: " For many years, pro se Plaintiffs Eliot I. Bernstein and Plaintiff Stephen Lamont have engaged in a defamatory and harassing campaign . . . alleging an immense global conspiracy . . . . Although largely unintelligible, the  [*3] [Amended Complaint] purports to describe a fantastic conspiracy among members of the legal profession, judges and government officials and private individuals and businesses to deprive plaintiffs of what they describe as their "holy grail" technologies"

Whistleblower Legal Malpractice?

We often remark that legal malpractice may be found everywhere, and in many an unusual circumstance.  The "Big Dig?"  Sure.  Here is a story from NY Lawyer about a whistle blower whose case was overlooked:

"A would-be whistle blower is suing Washington-based firm Phillips & Cohen in the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts for allegedly failing to pursue his false claims case against a contractor to the state's massive "Big Dig" highway project.

According to the lawsuit for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the plaintiff claimed that he entered into a contract with Phillips & Cohen and attorney Peter W. Chatfield around June 2000. The plaintiff alleged that the firm failed to pursue his case for several years, also that he "did not discover that he had suffered any damages or losses resulting" from Phillips & Cohen's lack of action until September 2006. Johnston v. Chatfield, No. 1:08-cv-11219-WGY (D. Mass.)
The plaintiff is a former employee of asphalt and concrete supply company Aggregate Industries Northeast Region Inc.

In July 2007, the company pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $50 million to settle criminal and civil charges related to a fraudulent scheme involving concrete. Aggregate agreed to provide up to $75 million in insurance coverage for maintenance problems related to the scheme. "
 
Legal Malpractice and Compelled Settlements

Matrimonial law is rife with questions of legal malpractice.  As in most spheres of the law, settlements take place in the majority of cases.  The general rule in legal malpractice is that one may sue the attorney after a settlement if the settlement was "effectively compelled" by the actions of the attorney.  Here is a case which seem to have arisen after the attorney sued for fees.Steven L. Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Balkin ;2008 NY Slip Op 06640 Decided on August 19, 2008 Appellate Division, Second Department .
 
"The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant and the additional counterclaim defendant (hereinafter together the respondents) which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellants' first counterclaim alleging legal malpractice, based upon allegations that the respondents misrepresented the scope of the oral stipulation of settlement in the related civil action, and that the settlement of the related civil action was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof, in the form of the transcript of the aforementioned oral stipulation (see Pacella v Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, 14 AD3d 545; Malarkey v Piel, 7 AD3d 681; Laruccia v Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, 295 AD2d 321). In response, the appellants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether or not they in fact voluntarily and knowingly entered into the terms of the stipulation, specifically with respect to Ronald's receipt of a credit in the sum of only $500,000, rather than in the sum of $937,000, from Karen's share of her equitable distribution award. The appellants raised a triable issue of fact by showing that Ronald, in response to a question posed by the court during the proceeding in which the stipulation was placed on the record, changed his response from "no" to "yes," when asked by the court if he understood that it would "not entertain any setting aside of the [settlement] without a showing of extreme circumstances." Ronald explained, in an affidavit, that he changed his answer at the explicit instruction of his attorney, Steven L. Levitt, the plaintiff's principal. This change in his answer was allegedly based upon statements in the record that the settlement of the related civil action would "be effective as of the date of execution of the documents," and not the date of the court appearance. Ronald averred that he understood that "[t]he formal stipulation of settlement" would reflect his attorney's representation to him that the misstated sum of $500,000 was to be corrected to $937,000, that the correction would be worked out when the stipulation was put on paper, and that "[i]t would all be fixed' later."