Published on:

By

In a story that is sadly all too familiar, the Oregon Supreme Court has issued an opinion and public reprimand of Brian Conry, an immigration lawyer who had the temerity to respond to three negative reviews posted online by a former client. In re Conry (OSB 18-104) (SC S067502). Conry represented a client who was seeking a stay of deportation proceedings. At some point the client engaged a new attorney who obtained the relief that the client was seeking. I will quote one of the reviews and responses:

“Horrible experience with [Respondent]. He lost my case. The government has ordered me deported. I fired him. Went to Gonzales Gonzales Gonzales Immigration law firm. They helped me to appeale [sic] my case and we won in about in about 3 month! [sic]. I found out that in my case I was not even deportable. But [Respondent] never told me that. He took over $20,000 in 5 years of fighting this case and lost it. STRONGLY RECOMMEND NOT TO HIRE THIS GUY.!!!”

The response:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Lawyers are often asked to provide an estimate of the costs of a matter. Inevitably the client regards the estimate as a limit on the attorneys total bill, even if the case becomes more difficult than originally anticipated. In Dubon v. Drexel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04119, the plaintiff claimed that the lawyer promised him that the matter would cost $100,000 and then sued the lawyer for overfilling when that sum was exceeded. That claim was defeated by a written engagement letter. As the court noted:

The plaintiff hired the defendants, Allen Drexel and Drexel, LLC (hereinafter together Drexel), to represent him in a divorce action. The plaintiff and Drexel entered into a retainer agreement (hereinafter the retainer), which set forth the terms of Drexel’s representation of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the retainer, Drexel, among other things, would provide the plaintiff with itemized billing statements at least every 60 days. The retainer further provided that any modifications to the agreement, fee estimates, budgets for work to be done for the plaintiff, or adjustments to Drexel’s bills “will be valid only if in writing and signed by [both parties]” (emphasis in original)…..

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Drexel’s motion which was to dismiss so much of the first breach of contract cause of action as alleged that Drexel breached the retainer by billing the plaintiff for legal services in excess of $100,000 (see Palero Food Corp. v Zucker, 186 AD3d at 496). Drexel demonstrated that such claim was conclusively disposed of by the retainer itself, which did not contain a provision stating that the plaintiff’s legal costs would not exceed $100,000, and which stated that any fee estimate must be in a writing signed by both parties.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Minnesota has enacted a statute that requires a plaintiff to file an affidavit with the complaint stating that the complaint is supported by expert testimony. Full expert disclosures are then required within 180 days of filing the case. In Mittelstaedt v. Henney, 954 NW 2d 852 (2021) the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the expert requirement applies even when the plaintiff sues an attorney for breach of fiduciary duty. Because attorneys enter into fiduciary relationships with their clients, it is often possible to allege that a breach of duty by an attorney was either (a) negligence or (b) a breach of fiduciary duty. The case simply holds that the same expert testimony requirements apply no matter what theory the plaintiff chooses.

Published on:

By

In Ring v. Schencker, 2021 IL App (1st) 180909-U, Barry Ring sued his former father-in-law, Richard Schencker for legal malpractice. During the marriage Ring was represented by Schencker in his business dealings. When he was divorced, Ring alleged that Schencker divulged confidential information to the attorneys for Ring’s wife (Schencker’s daughter). According to Ring, they used that information to obtain orders blocking Ring from selling or transferring assets. Judge Thomas Mulroy held a bench trial and held that the alleged disclosures of confidential information did not cause harm to Ring. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the lawyer.

The opinion summarizes Ring’s allegations as follows:

¶ 7 Barry alleged in his amended complaint:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Walker v. Shaevitz & Shaevitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 1799 (Appellate Division Second Department) the court affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim where the plaintiff attempted to create an issue of fact with her testimony. The problem for the plaintiff was that her testimony in the legal malpractice case contradicted her testimony in the underlying case. Result: summary judgment for defendant. The court found that the contradictory testimony was insufficient to create an issue of fact.

Should you have a question concerning a legal malpractice issue, do not hesitate to contact us.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Scarola Malone & Zubatov LLP v. Ellner, 2021 NY Slip Op 31199(U), April 8, 2021 (Supreme Court New York County) began with a lawsuit for legal fees against a client who declined to pay. The Defendant then filed a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. The counterclaims alleged that the law firm made several errors in representing the defendants in civil litigation essentially by refusing to accept a buyout or settlement of the underlying litigation. The court dismissed the legal malpractice counterclaim on the ground that Ellner was sophisticated and imposed his strategic plan for the case on the lawyers. The lawyers exercised judgment and did not commit malpractice.

The reasoning:

Where a sophisticated client imposes a strategic decision on counsel, the client’s action absolves the attorney from liability for malpractice (Town of North Hempstead v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 28 AD3d 746 [2006]; Stolmeier v Fields, 280 AD2d 342 [2001]). Additionally, with regard to strategic decisions “the selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice” (Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]). “Attorneys may select among reasonable courses of action in prosecuting their clients’ cases without thereby committing malpractice … so that a purported malpractice claim that amounts only to a client’s criticism of counsel’s strategy may be dismissed” (Dweck Law Firm, LLP v Mann, 283 AD2d 292, 293 [2001]). Hindsight arguments concerning selection of one of several reasonable courses of action do not state a viable cause of action for malpractice (Brookwood Cos., Inc. v Alston & Bird LLP, 146 AD3d 662, 667 [2017]).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Illinois Appellate Court recently decided Rosenberger v. Meltzer, Purtill & Steele, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 200414-U. Rosenberger hired the Defendant Law Firm to represent him in connection with the negotiation of an employment contract with CenTrust. CenTrust had entered into an operating agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Rosenberger was hired on February 1, 2012. His agreement provided for a three-year employment term with a base salary of $200,000 per year. The agreement also contained a clause providing for severance compensation which provided that:

“If this Agreement is terminated by the Company prior to the expiration of the Employment Period for any reason other than Cause,… then the Employee shall be entitled to receive in a single payment…an amount equals to two times his annual base salary then in effect.” The Agreement also contained section 28, titled Regulatory Suspension and Termination. That section provided that if the employee was “suspended from office and/or temporarily prohibited from participant in the conduct of the affairs of Employer by a notice served under Section 8(e)(3) …of the FDIA [Federal Deposit Insurance Act], Employer’s obligations under this agreement shall be suspended as of the date of service.”

CenTrust terminated Rosenberger on November 5, 2013 and refused to make any severance payment to Rosenberger on the ground that he had been terminated for cause and because OCC would not approve such a payment.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Illinois, there are two parts to the statute of limitations.  First, you have two years from the time you discover your injury to sue a lawyer. Second, you cannot sue the lawyer based on an action that he took more than 6 years prior to the date you file your case.  The two-year and six-year rules prevent many malpractice plaintiffs from suing. They also protect lawyers who gave advice long ago, when the law may have been different.

Saunders v. Hedrick, 20 C 6835 (N.D. IL) decided on February 18, 2021, is a classic example of how these statutes work in practice.  Saunders was fired from his job as a corrections officer in 2010. He retained Hedrick who negotiated a settlement for him in 2012. In 2020, Saunders discovered that because he took a settlement his pension would be reduced. He then sued Hedrick for legal malpractice. The court held the case was time-barred because the advice to settle was given in 2012, about 8 years before the lawsuit was filed.  Saunders argued that the lawyer fraudulently concealed the error from him. The court rejected that argument because Saunders was unable to plead any false representation by Hedrick that could form the basis of fraudulent concealment.  Result: case dismissed.

If you have question about a legal malpractice case, do not hesitate to contact us at 312-357-1515.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Patent malpractice claims are a rare, but growing area of legal malpractice. However, in Morgan & Mendel Genomics v. Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 30465, the trial court dismissed a patent malpractice claim because the client failed to give correct information to the law firm.

The facts:

On October 15, 2012, Einstein asked the Defendant to help obtain patent protection for its new discovery (id., ¶ 23). When the Defendant asked Einstein, their own client, for the publication date of the Article, Einstein advised that it was first published in March 2012 (id. 26). This was however incorrect. In fact, although the Defendant learned that the Article had appeared online on January 11, 2012 and emailed Dr. Ostrer and Mr. Loke on November 26, 2012 to advise them of the same, the article was first published in an “Early View” service on December 15, 2011 (id., 18-20, 29). Subsequently, the Defendant filed a provisional patent application on January 8, 2013 and a non-provisional application on January 8, 2014 (the Application) (id., ¶¶ 36-37)…..

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

One common issue that can trip up a litigant is the failure to disclose a civil lawsuit in a bankruptcy petition. The lawsuit is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Failing to disclose the existence of the lawsuit can lead to the dismissal of the civil lawsuit. In Horvath v. Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, 2021 N.Y. 30105 (U), the trial court (referred to in New York as the Supreme Court) denied the law firm’s motion to dismiss in just such a case.

After his civil lawsuit was dismissed for failure to include it as an asset of the bankruptcy estate, Horvath sued the law firm for negligence.  The summary of the facts indicates that the civil lawsuit was not disclosed until after Horvath’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.

In 2009, plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (“the Bankruptcy Court”) under Case No. 09-38537-KCF. Doc. 22. Plaintiff was represented in the bankruptcy proceeding by Jules Rossi, Esq. Doc. 22. On September 15, 2010, plaintiff was allegedly injured while he was a passenger in an elevator in a building in Manhattan. Doc. 21 at par. 4. Plaintiff thereafter retained the Law Offices of Michael Lamonsoff (“Lamonsoff”) to commence a personal injury action on his behalf against Gumley Haft Kleier Inc. (“GHK”) and Eltech Industries (“Eltech”). The action against GHK and Eltech was commenced in the Supreme Court, Bronx County in 2010 under Index Number 310013/10 (“the Bronx County action”). Doc. 17 at par. 16. Lamonsoff also represented plaintiff in an unrelated personal injury action commenced in New York County in 2010 under Index Number 115395/10 (“the New York County action”). Doc. 17 at par. 17.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design