Professional Malpractice Defense

Recognizing that there is no greater distinction than being called on by a professional to represent them when they have been sued, this firm has had the privilege to represent a great number of professionals against claims of legal, engineering, architectural and accounting malpractice. While the firm is fully prepared, and has on several occasions defended these cases at trial, our initial approach is to attack the case at the outset and make every effort to have it dismissed or disposed of by summary judgment. Failing that if it is in the client’s best interest to avoid the cost, disruption of its business, and adverse publicity of lengthy court proceedings, we make every effort to resolve the case through early mediation and settlement.

For example, in one case involving multiple defendants, we were able to structure a settlement which released the law firm we represented from the case and the plaintiff continued against the remaining parties.  A unique provision in the settlement agreement we structured provided that if the final verdict or settlement against the remaining defendants was above a certain figure the law firm we represented would get back a substantial portion of the settlement it paid out.  Indeed after several years of litigation, and a trip to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the plaintiff made a large recovery against the remaining defendants and returned a substantial portion of the settlement to the law firm. See R.H. Farnell, “Sleeping With the Enemy - Litigation Loan Agreement: Are They Legal?” The Florida Bar Journal, Feb. 1998, vol. LXXII, No. 2, page 28. 

In another recent case, the firm represented a large multi-state law firm that was sued derivatively along with its client by a shareholder.  On appeal we were able to establish that in a derivative action in Florida, the plaintiff may not claim punitive damages and is not entitled to a jury trial.  The case settled shortly thereafter.  Other representative reported cases include:

Souran v. Travelers Insurance Co., 982 F.2d 1497 (11^th Cir. 1993).  The firm was successful in obtaining a reversal of a Rule 11 sanction against the law firm.

Florida County Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., 98 F.Supp.2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2000).  The firm successfully obtained dismissal of action against law firm.

Cockrell v. Dinkins, Case No. 96-257-Civ-J-10A, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, affirmed, 149 F.3d 1194 (11^th Cir. 1998).  In this case the firm represented the court appointed attorney-ad-litem for the Estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr.  The plaintiff claimed to be an heir of Howard Hughes based on the theory of equitable adoption and filed a legal malpractice action contending he was denied the opportunity to recover from the Estate.   The district court entered summary judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  The case was affirmed on appeal.