• Home
  • News
  • Lawyer Won $2.4M for Client, But Should Get No Attorney Fee, 2nd Circuit Says

Legal Ethics

Lawyer Won $2.4M for Client, But Should Get No Attorney Fee, 2nd Circuit Says

Posted Jan 7, 2009 3:03 PM CST
By Martha Neil

In what the 2nd Circuit describes in a written opinion as a close case, the appeals court has upheld a lower court decision to award no attorney fee to a former New York lawyer who won a $2.4 million settlement for his client in a medical malpractice case.

Because Steven Goldman didn't adequately document either the basis of his eventual $388,000 fee request (it was initially higher) or the nature of his minor client's ongoing medical problems and future need for treatment, a trial judge acted within his discretion when he refused to approve any legal fee whatsoever, the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a written opinion released Monday.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York oversaw the settlement. He described the information provided by Goldman as "totally unhelpful," and wound up appointing both a special master and a medical expert to help him determine how to resolve the case, reports the New York Law Journal.

However, attorney Arnold DiJoseph, who represents Goldman, said the 2nd Circuit decision is troubling.

"I find it very disturbing that an attorney who obtained damages of $2.4 million versus Martin Clearwater & Bell, one of the top malpractice defense firms in the state of New York, right after examinations before trial, isn't getting a penny," he tells the legal publication. "Nobody is even arguing that the result he obtained wasn't satisfactory. He isn't getting any fees because he made a mistake and that somehow got transformed into how he was trying to steal $20,000 from a brain-damaged baby."

Goldman has since resigned from the New York bar to resolve an unrelated attorney disciplinary matter, the legal publication notes.

Comments

1.

sb
Jan 9, 2009 10:46 AM CST

Man, I’m glad I don’t practice in NY.  Fine the man, issue a written reprimand, reduce the fee, but completely eradicating the fee?  That’s rather harsh, considering no one would ever get $2.4 mil in my state for an injured baby.

Flag this comment

2.

B. Mcleod
Jan 9, 2009 10:57 AM CST

This illustrates why it can be a good idea to provide information when a federal judge asks for it.

Flag this comment

3.

Toma
Jan 9, 2009 11:35 AM CST

Oh, the plumber installed all the fixtures in the building rehab, but didn’t mail the permit to the inspector, pay him $0.  That’s fair.  Oh, I forgot, we’re talking about the esteemed vocation of counselor at law, held to a gold standard of performance and all their motivation should derive from the most altruistic ideals, the least of which should be monetary.  This of course is why attorneys are held in such high regard in public discourse - that and people like Nancy Grace putting such an awesome image forth.

Flag this comment

4.

Daniel Reitman
Jan 9, 2009 10:45 PM CST

This is probably consistent with what would happen in Oregon state court., except that the rules do allow amending a fee petition to correct a failure to properly detail the fees.

Flag this comment

5.

Lawyer K.
Jan 10, 2009 6:43 AM CST

That is a travesty.  The lawyer, Steven Goldman, should be commended for getting such a great outcome for his client—but the Judges in New York want to drive him out of practice and into bankruptcy, instead. 
I agree with commenter #3, wholeheartedly. 
Here’s another way of looking at it:  Lawyer screwed up by not adequately documenting his fee request, so he gets no fee.  How about every time a Judge screws up by rendering a decision that later gets overturned, the Judge forfeits his salary for the year. 
What do you think?  I think it would be fair in this instance, at least.

Flag this comment

6.

Mike
Jan 10, 2009 3:43 PM CST

His mistake was bringing this matter in Federal Court in the first place. No way a state court judge would have done this

Flag this comment

7.

Texasn
Jan 16, 2009 7:05 AM CST

He didn’t have the client sign a fee agreement - he shouldn’t get paid

pro bono it is

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

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

Commenting has expired on this post.