Legal Malpractice Law Review : Professional Responsibility Case Summaries & Commentary : Bennett J. Wasserman : LegalMalpractice.com : Lawyer Malpractice & Legal Ethics

Dessel v. Dessel and Donohue,431 N.W.2d 359 (Sup. Ct. 1988).

Iowa underlying partnership dissolution

Student contributor: Cheryl Neuman

Facts: Two brothers, James and George, were partners in a business and wanted to dissolve the partnership. Both brothers retained one lawyer, the defendant in the present action. The agreement stated that James’ share of the partnership would be sold to George and the accounts receivable would be divided equally between the two brothers.   After the partnership was dissolved, James died. James’ wife was appointed executor of the estate and she also retained defendant attorney as her attorney. James’ wife and George got into an argument regarding the division of the accounts receivable. Defendant counseled both George and James’ wife during the dispute. After the dispute could not be resolved, defendant, acting for the estate, sued George, claiming he breached his fiduciary duties in collecting the accounts receivable. George retained separate counsel and filed a legal malpractice case against defendant.

Issue 1: Was defendant liable for inserting a “hold harmless clause” in the dissolution agreement, as it was the sole basis for James’ wife’s suit against George?

Ruling 1: Yes, because this specific provision was inserted by mistake and in direct violation of the brother’s wishes and instructions. Defendant was therefore negligent.

Issue 2: Did defendant attorney have a conflict of interest in representing both George and James’ wife?

Ruling 2: Yes, because George stopped taking the 6% fee that James and George had orally agreed upon as a result of defendant’s advice. Defendant would not have given this advice had he not been retained to represent James’ wife. Furthermore, defendant’s negligence in inserting this clause, proximately caused George to pay legal expenses to defend the estate’s suit against him. Defendant’s advice to George was clearly the reason George surrendered the commission he had earned.

Lesson: A lawyer should not represent two parties in a matter when there is a clear conflict. There was information in this case that defendant questioned George about his activities and then used that information as the basis for the lawsuit against George; a clear violation of the professional rules of conduct. Rather than trying to retain the most amount of clients for the most amount of profit, it is wise to only represent those parties that are proper to represent and steer clear of malpractice litigation.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fiorentino v. Rapoport,   693 A.2d 208 (Pa. Super. 1997).

PA underlying sale of business interest : conflict of interest

Student contributor: Cheryl Neuman

Facts: Plaintiff and his business partner had established a restaurant servicing business. Ten years later, plaintiff and his partner decided to end their business relationship. They hired defendant lawyer to draft the terms of their mutual agreement. The defendant, however, failed to discuss the possibility of a default by one of the partners, conflict of interest, or the possibility of hiring independent counsel by each of the business partners. Subsequent to signing the termination agreement, one business partner could not pay plaintiff the money that he owed the other under the agreement. Furthermore, the business partner transferred the business’s assets to other companies—owned by his family, that competed in the restaurant servicing business. The defaulting partner filed for bankruptcy. Plaintiff then sued defendant for 1) breach of contract, 2) legal malpractice, and 3) breach of fiduciary duty.

Issue: Was it the inadequate quality of defendant’s legal services that allowed the defaulting partner to strip the business of all assets, rendering it judgment proof, so that he could not pay what was owed to plaintiff?

Ruling: Yes, it was the negligence of defendant’s legal services that allowed the defaulting partner to liquidate his business so that he could declare bankruptcy and subsequently fail to pay the money owed to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s expert (the Editor here) testified that it is a universal practice for lawyers to consult form books when drafting agreements for the sale of a business. Common protection used in these agreements include clauses that require corporate stock to be transferred through third-party escrow accounts, prohibit the transfer of corporate assets to other entities for less than the full market value, and prevent the buyer from setting up businesses that compete with the business providing the payment source for the seller, which is what happened in this case. None of those common safety clauses were used in the termination agreement and that benefitted one partner over the other. The conflict of interest should have been obvious to the defendant lawyer.

Lesson: The crux of the matter is that the default could have been avoided if the agreement had been properly drafted to prevent the transfer of assets away from the servicing business into other businesses that actively competed with the original business. That happened becuase, the defendant lawyer had a conflict of interest, since he could not concurrently represent both the separating partners whose interests were adverse to one another. It was therefore inevitable that one side of the transaction was going to benefit at the cost of the other. The Court relied heavily on the plaintiff's expert and permitted the suit to proceed under both tort and contract theories. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To the extent consistent with the lawyer's other legal duties and subject to the other provisions of this Restatement, a lawyer must, in matters within the scope of the representation:

1. proceed in a manner reasonably calculated to advance a client's lawful objectives, as defined by the client after consultation;

2. act with reasonable competence and diligence;

3. comply with obligations concerning the client's confidences and property, avoid impermissible conflicts interest, deal honestly with the client, and not employ advantages arising from the client-lawyer relationship in a manner adverse to the client; and

4. fulfill valid contractual obligation to the client.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link