Legal Malpractice has become so complicated that
you need an expert to help figure it out.

Our Cases

Our Legal Malpractice Experts bring more than their expertise to your case.  They bring results!

Confidential Corp v. One Big International Law Firm (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2009)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters), where a battery of 6 of our Legal Malpractice Experts helped win a settlement for a publicly traded company for the negligence of  its former law firm which    botched an underlying securities filing resulting in an adverse judgment against the client of $7.5 million by a disgruntled investor.  Result: Pre-trial settlement  against the law firm of $10.6 million, one of the largest settlements on record for that year.

Carbis Sales  v. Eisenberg,  397 N.J. Super. 64, 935 A.2d 1236 (App. Div. 2007) (© 2018 Thomson Reuters), where  the court cited our Legal Malpractice Expert’s opinion in support of  an insurance carrier which sued its own designated defense counsel for malpractice  for failing to adequately prepare for trial. The  insured unnecessarily got hit with a judgment of $600,000, when they should have been dismissed from the underlying product liability action. This is one of  the most frequently cited appellate decisions  on the net opinion rule. Result: Judgment  in favor of  the carrier against its own designated defense counsel.

Fiorentino v. Rapoport 693 A.2d 208 (Pa. Super. 1997)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters) appeal denied, 1997 PA. 2323 (1997), a widely discussed and frequently cited case in Pennsylvania, where a prominent Philadelphia law firm was sued for conflicts of interest causing nearly a million dollars of damages in a complex commercial transaction.   The court cited our Legal Malpractice expert’s opinion to support its decision.  Result: The Appellate Division reinstated the claims erroneously dismissed by the trial court. The Supreme Court  affirmed. The case was remanded for a new trial and was then settled.

Olds v. Donnelly,  150 N.J. 424 (1997)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters), where based on our Legal Malpractice Expert’s testimony, the jury awarded half a million dollars  for legal malpractice in a botched underlying medical malpractice case.  Result: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the jury award and exempted legal malpractice cases from the entire controversy doctrine.  The case changed the law in New Jersey.

Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St. 3d 421, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (1997)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters) where the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the opinion of our Legal Malpractice Expert on what the outcome of the underlying case would have been had the lawyer not been negligent.
Result: Plaintff no longer required to show that she would have prevailed in any underlying civil, criminal or administrative proceeding in order to prove that the attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of her damages.  The case eliminated the “case within a case” requirement and  changed the law in Ohio.

Estate of Re v. Kornstein, Veisz & Wexler958 F. Supp. 907 (SDNY 1997)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters), involved decedent’s  underlying employment agreement dispute.  Result: Then U.S. District Court  Judge  (now U..S. Supreme Court Justice) Sotomayor agreed with our Legal Malpractice Expert that even if there is no evidence of negligence, a lawyer can still be liable for a breach of fiduciary duty to the client.

Confidential Client  v. Confidential Lawyer, (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2004)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters), where a battery of our Legal Malpractice Experts showed that the client would have prevailed on her claim of  ownership of New York Mercantile Exchange seats had her lawyer arbitrated rather than litigated that claim.   Result: Settled for close to $2 million, the lawyer’s policy limit.

Profit Sharing Trust of Marprowear v. Lampf Lipkind, 267 N.J. Super 174 630 A.2d 1191 (Law Div., 1993)(© 2018 Thomson Reuters), where the court wrote that our Legal Malpractice Expert’s “opinion is better supported by case law” than the adversary’s expert.   Result: Judgment in excess of half a million dollars. The decision is one of the most widely cited for the lawyer’s fiduciary duty to its clients.