Grace v. Law, 2013 NY Slip Op 5383 – NY: Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 2013 – Google Scholar.
This is a New York case in which the defendant lawyer raised an important issue: in a legal malpractice case is the plaintiff required to exhaust all of his appeals in the underlying litigation before she can bring the legal malpractice action?
The answer is “No.” The plaintiff is allowed to resolve or abandon the underlying case.
Recently, the undersigned encountered an arbitration clause drafted by a successful Chicago law firm.
I will quote the relevant language in full and then discuss what the language means for a client. I am not in any way criticizing the clause or the lawyers who drafted it.
“This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Illinois and any disputes concerning the Agreement, our fees that relate in any way to our representation, including any claims relating to our billings for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence or malpractice or other disputes over our representation, shall be resolved under Illinois law in Chicago, Illinois through a summary procedure involving limited discovery in which we will jointly appoint a qualified arbitrator who specializes in such matters to promptly resolve any disputes through arbitration, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. These limitations shall be imposed on any arbitration: (i) five (5) depositions, thirty (30) interrogatories, forty (40) document requests and fifty (50) requests for admissions per side; (ii) pre-hearing briefs totaling fifteen (15) pages per side; (iii) post-hearing briefs totaling twenty-five (25) pages per side; (iv) no more than three (3) days for hearing testimony and argument. Because this procedure for dispute resolution involves a waiver of [Client’s] rights and ours, we jointly acknowledge that this alternative procedure for dispute resolution waives our respective rights to seek relief through litigation or to have a trial by jury or to conduct full discovery or to appeal or to otherwise exercise rights available in litigation, rather than through arbitration. It is therefore, important that this matter be carefully discussed with independent counsel and only after that review has been completed can we jointly agree to this alternative dispute-resolution procedure. In the event agreement cannot be reached on a suitable arbitrator, we shall jointly seek the assistance of the American Bar Association for the selection of a suitable person. (Emphasis supplied).
Goldfine v. BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM AND PERLMAN, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 6th Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, has affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against a defendant law firm. The allegation of negligence was that the law firm failed to preserve the plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Securities laws against Shearson Lehman. In short, the alleged error was the failure to timely file a claim for rescission against Shearson Lehman.
In a legal malpractice case, the court must always begin with an analysis of the underlying transaction or the underlying lawsuit. Here, the plaintiffs had a valid claim under the Illinois Securities Laws against Shearson Lehman. Under the Illinois Securities Law, the purchaser has six months from the time he learns of the right of rescission. The law firm failed to serve the notice of rescission and the Illinois courts rejected the plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred.
This is a complaint filed by the ARDC, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The ARDC’s complaint alleges that an attorney, Tina Marie Jacobs, filed a foreclosure case against a homeowner. The ARDC alleges that the lawyer failed to provide the homeowner with a grace period notice required by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The statute sets forth the exact text the grace period notice must contain:
“The notice required in this subsection (c) shall state the date on which the notice was mailed, shall be headed in bold 14-point type “GRACE PERIOD NOTICE”, and shall state the following in 14-point type: “YOUR LOAN IS MORE THAN 30 DAYS PAST DUE. YOU MAY BE EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. IT MAY BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO SEEK APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. YOU HAVE A GRACE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO OBTAIN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. DURING THE GRACE PERIOD, THE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAY GRACE PERIOD IF YOU OBTAIN HOUSING COUNSELING FROM AN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCY. A LIST OF APPROVED COUNSELING AGENCIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.”
This case concerns whether a member of an LLC can sue for legal malpractice the lawyers who represented the entity. The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff, Donald Klingelhoefer, lacked standing to sue.
Nebraska follows the traditional rule that the shareholder of a corporation or member of a limited liability company lacks standing because the corporation or LLC suffered the injury, not the shareholder or member.
This case is a somewhat routine affirmance of a bank fraud conviction and the rejection of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Defendant alleged that her lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call certain witnesses at the trial of the case. In the criminal world, an ineffective assistance claim is equivalent in many ways to a legal malpractice claim. If there is a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant is sometimes entitled to a new trial.
Here, the defendant fired her lawyers, but was assisted by stand by counsel at her trial. Counsel decided not to call certain witnesses because the potential risk of their negative testimony far outweighed the potential reward. This case makes it clear that these decisions are for the lawyer to make at trial, except in unusual circumstances. The Seventh Circuit explains the rules applicable to witness testimony issues: “A “lawyer’s decision to call or not to call a witness is a strategic decision generally not subject to review. The Constitution does not oblige counsel to present each and every witness that is suggested to him.” United States v. Best, 426 F.3d 937, 945 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Williams, 106 F.3d 1362, 1367 (7th Cir. 1997)). Indeed, Parker acknowledges that the decision whether to call a witness was her attorney’s to make.”
Comment: the point here is that it is almost impossible to win a legal malpractice case on the ground that the lawyer failed to call a witness. That decision was the lawyer’s to make in his professional judgment.
This is yet another development in the huge and growing area of litigation between lawyers and their legal malpractice insurers.
Here, the insurance company obtained summary judgment against the lawyers on the ground that the claim was not made in the policy period. Once again, the lawyers did little to help their own cause – they failed to promptly report the claim to the insurance company.
Hospital Sues Law Firm For Losses Related To Lehman Brothers
This is a case alleging legal malpractice in the context of corporate law. Passavant Memorial Hospital has sued a law firm that allegedly provided negligent legal advice concerning a commercial transaction. The Hospital, acting on advice of the lawyers, attempted to terminate a bond interest swap. The notice of termination was sent by fax, not by regular mail. Lehman Brothers claimed it had no record of receiving notice. Litigation ensued and the Hospital was required to pay $2,975,000 to settle the litigation. The lawyers were negligent because they sent the termination notice by fax, instead of by mail.
O’KELLYN v. Dawson, 2013 PA Super 25 – Pa: Superior Court 2013 – Google Scholar.
This is a case where a lawyer was accused of legal malpractice for failing to properly document a settlement of a divorce case. The settlement related to an award of maintenance. The parties agreed on a certain amount. The lawyer did not draft up the papers and obtain the signature of the other spouse. As a result, the court entered a maintenance award that was substantially greater than the agreed upon amount.
The client was unhappy because he was required to pay far more maintenance than he agreed to pay. He sued the lawyer and, after a jury trial, obtained an award of damages in the amount of $100,363.64.
Every year, when I receive my legal malpractice insurance application, there is always a question on whether I am an officer or director of an outside entity.
In this case, one member of the law firm was involved in an outside entity, a corporation, American Gulf Insurance, LLC, that allegedly fraudulently induced certain investors to invest in the company. The plaintiffs, in the underlying case, sued the law firm for fraud and legal malpractice. The plaintiffs alleged that the lawyers negligently advised them to invest in the entity. Howard Fensterman, one of the name partners of the law firm, was allegedly an owner of American Gulf Insurance. Fensterman allegedly had more than a passive role in the entity.
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog