FKB's Andrew S. Kowlowitz and Evan W. Bolla obtain dismissal of a legal malpractice action against a Virginia Law Firm. 4/8/2011

FKB's client is a law firm with a specialty in telecommunications located in Virginia. The Law Firm was retained by a client to assist with the purchase of a radio station owned by a New York corporation. The Law Firm assisted its client in negotiations for the acquisition of the radio station. However, the attorney-client relationship deteriorated and the Law Firm subsequently withdraw as counsel. The client refused to pay outstanding legal fees. Thus, the Law Firm commenced a law suit in the Virginia Courts, seeking payment of its fees. Following a jury trial, the Law Firm was awarded a judgment consisting of all outstanding legal fees.

Subsequently, the client commenced a separate suit against the Law Firm in the Queens County Supreme Court alleging misconduct, which included, among other things, fraudulent billing practices, unauthorized practice of law in New York State, and general negligence. The Complaint contained causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of Judiciary Law §487.

FKB filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211. FKB argued that the plaintiff/former client's claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as the issues raised in the New York suit were previously considered and adjudicated in the Virginia Court fee action. In other words, FKB argued that a Virginia Court had already ruled that no malfeasance had occurred when a jury awarded the Law Firm its outstanding legal fees. On this basis, FKB argued that the plaintiff/client was estopped from bringing these claims in a new venue.

On March 16, 2011, Hon. Marguerite A. Grays, J.S.C., granted the Law Firm's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Justice Grays found that plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as documents provided by FKB in its motion papers, including excerpts from the summation in the Virginia action and the verdict in that matter, demonstrated that the Virginia action represented an adjudicated of the claims on the merits.

Should you have any questions concerning this decision, or the defense of legal professionals in general, please contact Andrew S. Kowlowitz or Evan W. Bolla.

Home | Email | Site map | Client Rights | Disclaimer | Top of page