Published on:

By

Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCABE & MACK, LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 2392 – NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 – Google Scholar.

This case was filed by an insurance company against lawyers who were assigned by the insurance company to handle a subrogation action. The complaint asserted two legal theories; legal malpractice and fraud.

The trial court dismissed the fraud claim. The Appellate Division reversed. It held that the insurance company had properly alleged fraud when it claimed the lawyers (a) billed it for filing a motion for default judgment; (b) received payment for the work when (c) the lawyer never actually filed the motion for default judgment.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY v. FLADSETH, Dist. Court, ND California 2013 – Google Scholar.

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurance company against a lawyer. The underlying cases were two lawsuits against the lawyer. He was accused of charging excessive fees in two medical malpractice lawsuits. He sought coverage under his legal malpractice insurance policy and the insurer denied coverage.

The insurance policy excluded from coverage any fee disputes with clients.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, GREENBERG, FORMATO & EINIGER, LLP v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, Dist. Court, ED New York 2013 – Google Scholar.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

LEE & AMTZIS, LLP v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 30018 – NY: Supreme Court 2013 – Google Scholar.

This case is one of a growing group of cases where insurers contest their duty to defend an insured lawyer after the lawyer is sued for legal malpractice. The plaintiff, Ms. Kurtin, alleged that she was represented by the law firm in negotiating a loan with one of the principals of that firm, Randy Lee. [If true, the allegations of legal malpractice are problematic. Lee was one of the persons getting a benefit from the loan from Kurtin. He could not fairly and adequately represent her in connection with that loan transaction. Lee’s interests and those of Kurtin were directly adverse.

The lawyers gave prompt notice to their legal malpractice insurer, which denied coverage. The insurer argued that the conflict of interest between Lee and Kurtin barred coverage under the legal malpractice policy:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

DRAFT COMPLAINT.

The ARDC has filed a complaint against two lawyers who handled a case on a contingency basis.  The first agreement from 2005 gave them a legal fee of 33 and 1/3 of the gross amount recovered.  After they had obtained a recovery for the client, they lawyers prepared a new agreement in 2008 which increased the fee to 40% of the total amount.  The ARDC alleged that the increased fee constituted overreaching and a breach of fiduciary duty.

Generally, it is taboo to renegotiate a contingency fee agreement after a recovery has been made.  The client is vulnerable and the lawyer, who may be holding funds in a trust account, is in a stronger position.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Osborne v. Keeney, Ky: Supreme Court 2012 – Google Scholar.

This is a legal malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged that her lawyer failed to file a lawsuit on time and missed the applicable statute of limitations.  The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the claim and addressed other issues as well.  The court held that punitive damages are not recoverable against an attorney in a legal malpractice case.

The opinion reaffirms that the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must prove a case within a case.  The court set forth the method for proving the case within a case requirement:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Allison v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Tex: Court of Appeals, 14th Dist. 2012 – Google Scholar.

The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a suspension for a lawyer who missed deadlines in an immigration matter and whose client was deported as a result.  This is a case where a lawyer’s neglect of a matter results in professional discipline.  The court rejected the lawyer’s argument that the client was difficult to reach.

The rule is quoted below:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Filed November 30.

The ARDC Hearing Board has recommended a six month suspension for a lawyer who falsely notarized a quit claim deed and then, when he received an inquiry from the ARDC, falsely informed the ARDC that the signatures of his clients were genuine.  The panel explains:

“

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Excess Insurer Can Bring Legal Malpractice Claim Against Lawyer

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. SANDBERG, PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, PC., Dist. Court, SD Illinois 2012 – Google Scholar.

This is a dispute between an insurer and the lawyers who were hired to defend a case. Illinois has recognized that an insurance company has a right to sue defense counsel for malpractice. Illinois has never decided whether to allow an excess insurer to bring such a lawsuit.

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 – 2026, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design