The St. Louis, Mo. law firm of Brown & James has agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by attorney Daniel P. Finney Jr.
An Ohio lawyer is being sued in federal court for allegedly conspiring to use evidence acquired through illegal electronic surveillance to win her client’s divorce case.
David L. Martindale was given the boot after he openly questioned his Mississippi law firm’s handling of a big-time personal injury case.
Yesterday, a state court ruled that the expelled member of the firm was entitled to no more than the $19,800 check he was handed on his way out the door.
A law firm’s malpractice insurance should not have been rescinded based on the imputation of knowledge of one partner’s misconduct to an innocent partner who filled out the policy’s renewal application, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
The Missouri Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Cape Girardeau, Mo. attorney Scott Reynolds, who pleaded guilty to third-degree domestic assault two years ago.
In 2010, Kansas City, Mo., solo practitioner Kevin L. Jamison fell headlong into the ultimate nightmare for a small law office.
Jamison fired his office manager of 10 years after she refused to turn over the password to her desk computer. He soon learned that his client trust accounts had been overdrawn. His long-trusted employee, he alleges, had been embezzling from him for years.
Maryland’s highest court has refused to impose any sanctions on a Baltimore-based lawyer whose stepmother accused him of deceit and fraud in handling the estate of his deceased father, who was a famed night club operator and real estate developer.
The Virginia Supreme Court has rejected proposed reforms in lawyer advertising regulations, refusing to relax requirements for disclaimers on claims about case results and tightening limits on the use of words such as “expert” and “specialist.”
More is not always better. That point was driven home yesterday to a California lawyer who managed to bury three separate courts under mountains of paper in his bid to recover $600,000 he lost to a Ponzi scheme.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held recently that a law firm could pay a paralegal a percentage of the gross proceeds from cases on which the paralegal worked. The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation had argued that the compensation plan violated the prohibition on sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer. (In re Weigel, 817 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. 2012)).
The opinion represents the latest chapter in a long‑running debate about how lawyers can compensate their non-lawyer colleagues. This has been a contentious issue, and the decision in the Wisconsin case highlights the continuing controversy.