• Home
  • News
  • Law Firms Seen as Potential Cash Cows in Bankruptcy Cases

Law Firms

Law Firms Seen as Potential Cash Cows in Bankruptcy Cases

Posted Apr 22, 2009 8:26 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: The worsening economy may bring more malpractice lawsuits against law firms by bankruptcy trustees who consider them potential cash cows.

David Parker of Parker Mills in Los Angeles told the Daily Journal (sub. req.) that the burgeoning area of litigation is attracting some plaintiffs lawyers who are actively searching for bankruptcy trustees to represent.

A number of recent cases illustrate the trend, according to the story. The publication lists these examples:

• Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman paid $10 million to settle a suit over the firm’s failure to disclose an alleged conflict of interest in a bankruptcy case. Another firm, Levene, Neale, Bender, Rankin & Brill, paid $2.5 million to settle the trustee’s claim in the same case.

• A $200 million suit against McDermott Will & Emery by the bankruptcy trustee for Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers of New York. The trustee claimed the law firm delayed a bankruptcy filing and failed to disclose a possible conflict between two financial advisers. The case settled for an undisclosed amount and was dismissed earlier this month, according to a docket entry unearthed by the Daily Journal.

• A suit against Snell & Wilmer by the trustee for Brea Community Hospital Corp. that claimed the law firm mishandled litigation and bankrupted the hospital. Snell & Wilmer won the case in a jury trial.

Bankruptcy lawyer and trustee Richard Marshack told the Daily Journal that more law firms with slowing business might be tempted to try bankruptcy litigation—and they may end up making mistakes that will expose them to malpractice litigation.

Updated at noon CT to include information that the McDermott case settled.

Comments

1.

Debra VEOLI
Apr 23, 2009 8:35 PM CST

Of course!  Once the companies go bust, theywill be looking for their legal fees back.  Or they will sue our firm because we made some money rather then losing so much money.

I think this is all a shame.  Companies should NOT be allowed to sue their counsel.  Period.

We do there work for them and that should be it.  They can ALWAYS farm out their work somewhere else if they don’t like it.  I have to much work as it is already.

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
Apr 23, 2009 10:47 PM CST

The Journal is really becoming quite agricultural in its outlook.  Last week it was bellwethers, and this week, cash cows.  Oh, and the Peeps were chicks and bunnies.

Flag this comment

3.

JME
Apr 24, 2009 7:31 AM CST

Is Debra VEOLI actually Ellen in disguise?  We are getting an awful lot of capitalization going on here in her comments.  Some similar brain activity too, it would seem, by analyzing the ideas she is espousing.

Flag this comment

4.

Jeremy
Apr 24, 2009 7:42 AM CST

Companies should not be able to sue their counsel, Debra?  I hope you were being facetious.  If a law firm violates the law that ultimately injures their client, the client should naturally be afforded legal recourse.  “Period.”

Flag this comment

5.

Mike Appleton
Apr 24, 2009 7:43 AM CST

The suggestion that companies not be permitted to sue their counsel is absurd. An increase in malpractice suits when companies go bankrupt is to be expected.  Legal negligence is easily hidden or even covered up in large firms due to sheer size.  When a company collapses, an enterprising trustee will likely be able to sort out any significant lapses in the quality of legal work.

Flag this comment

6.

Charles W. Skinner
Apr 24, 2009 9:54 AM CST

I think that it’s important to note here that it is the trustee of the bankrupt company that is going after the law firm.

Perhaps some form of expedited initial review, where if the claim is found to be without merit, the trustee would be required to pay the firm damages and the law firm’s ACTUAL cost of defense (not just “reasonable attorney’s fees”).  That should be a big enough poison pill to weed out the frivolous filings that are just looking for an insurance pay-out.

I’m all for those who are actually damaged by poor counsel having legal recourse.  What I don’t want to see is opportunistic trustees trying to muscle the firms into rolling over and paying a claim out of insurnace, because that’s less expensive and less damaging to the firm’s reputation.  That makes legal insurance that much more expensive for all of us.

Flag this comment

7.

Andy the Lawyer
Apr 24, 2009 10:00 AM CST

of course, major mlegal malpractice litigation means more billable work for attorneys going after and defending the malpractice insurers unwilling to adequately defend or fully indemnify their attorney and law firm insureds.  Yay!

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.