Legal Malpractice Cases

Lozano v. Richard Alamia, Cause No. CL-12-3640-D, In the County Court at Law No. 4, Hidalgo County

Represented client against Richard Alamia, former mayor of Edinburg for failing to properly draft the client’s petition and make specific affirmative defenses. Mr. Alamia also failed to introduce numerous material documents as evidence in the underlying trial. After a four-day trial a unanimous jury found against Richard Alamia and awarded our client a judgment in the approximate amount of $300,000. Pre-suit offer by the defendant was $5,000.00.

Balestra v. Locke, Liddell & Sapp, LLP, et al; Cause No 01-744-E, In the 101dt District Court of Dallas County

Represented a client against a law firm that negligently drafted a deed that conveyed an entire interest to real property instead of fifty percent as intended and authorized by the client. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Smith v. Mark Midani and Midani, Hinkle & Cole, LLP, Cause No. E-0197802, In the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County

Represented a client against Mark Midani and his firm Midani, Hinkle & Cole, LLP. Midani and his firm represented the client in a dental malpractice case filed in Beaumont, Texas. Midani and his associate, David Hutchins failed to show up for trial on the day it was set leaving the Court no option but to dismiss the case. The lawyers did not show up for trial because they failed to properly designate an expert witness to prove up the dental malpractice case. Thereafter, the client hired the Kassab Law Firm to file a legal malpractice claims against the lawyers. After the legal malpractice case was compelled to arbitration, a four-day arbitration/trial ensued. At the conclusion of the arbitration, the Kassab Law Firm’s client was awarded approximately $550,000 against Midani and his law firm. The arbitrator also awarded $100,000 in punitive damages against David Hutchins for fabricating evidence (a medical report) and lying to their client.

Prior to trial, Defendants top offer to settle the case was $50,000. Plaintiff demanded 75,000. Total judgment was in excess of $650,000

Doades v. Branson et al; Cause No. 03-04003-L, In the 193 rd District Court of Dallas County

Represented a client against a high-profile boutique medical malpractice law firm in Dallas that failed to file a proper report from a doctor expert in the underlying medical malpractice case. Due to this error, the underlying medical malpractice case was dismissed and a judgment was entered against the client. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved for a substantial confidential amount prior to taking the first deposition.

Garcia v. Tinsman, Scott & Sciano, Inc.; Cause No. 2004-CI-13651, In the 285 th District Court of Bexar County

Represented client against a firm and its lawyers alleging that the lawyers concocted a reason to withdraw from the client’s medical malpractice case because they had failed to diligently obtain all of the client’s medical records prior to filing suit, a suit that would require a report from a doctor expert. The suit alleged that after the lawyers failed to obtain all of the client’s medical records in a timely fashion and realized that the statute of limitations was about to expire, the lawyers obtained an opinion letter from an unqualified medical consultant to state that no medical negligence occurred. The suit alleged that the lawyers used this letter as an excuse to withdraw from the client’s case only days before the statute of limitations forever barred the client from bringing her case. The lawsuit resolved for a significant confidential amount before trial.

Hohman v. Fibich, Hampton & Leebron, LLP; Cause No. C-1543-09-D, In the 206 th District Court of Hidalgo County

Represented clients whose son died suddenly of cardiac arrest after taking the drug Adderall. The clients hired the law firm of Fibich, Hamtpon & Lebron to bring a lawsuit against the doctor who prescribed the drug and the manufacturer of the drug for failure to warn. The suit alleged that the firm gave the case to an inexperienced lawyer that was in over her head. The suit alleged that these lawyers first failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. Then the lawyers concealed this information from the clients and continued with the case against the manufacturer of the drug. The suit further alleged that the lawyers failed to diligently pursue the case and failed to obtain the necessary discovery for review by expert witnesses in order to prove the case. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the lawyers failed to provide expert testimony to support the allegations in the underlying lawsuit. The legal malpractice action eventually settled for a significant confidential amount before trial.

Beatty v. Knighton, Cause No. 2011-75990, In the 133 rd District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against lawyer and his law firm wherein the lawyer represented two partners in establishing a partnership regarding one partner’s established business. The lawyer and law firm were to draft documents to allow a partner to come into the established business of the first client. The lawyer and law firm failed to provide proper advice regarding the conflict and failed to obtain a waiver of conflict. The lawyer then proceeded to draft the partnership agreement in a way designed to allow the second partner to take over the first’s partner’s established business. Case settled for a substantial confidential amount after the first day of trial. Interestingly, the case settled for seventy percent (70%) more than what the Defendants said they would ever pay.

BAC Group, Inc. v. Burleson, Pate & Gibson, LLP, Cause No. DF-00-6648-K, In the 192 nd District Court of Dallas County

Represented BAC Group, Inc., a company that was in the business of leasing breathalyzers to those involved with drunk driving cases. The company was selling its assets to another company, Life Sciences Corporation (LSC) and hired Burleson, Pate & Gibson to draft purchase and sales documents. BAC alleged that the lawyers represented both the company and LSC in the transaction and placed the interest of LSC ahead of BAC’s interest by failing to insert a “bankruptcy clause” in the agreement just in case LSC were to file bankruptcy. After the transaction, LSC filed bankruptcy and BAC was not paid for the assets (approximately $2,100,000 in value) it sold to LSC. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Mitchell, et al v. Crain Caton & James, PC, et al; Cause No. 2008-56373, In the 215 th District Court of Harris County

Represented clients against a law firm that represented them and other clients regarding the probate of an estate. The law firm failed to properly advise regarding the conflict of interest and put the interests of some clients ahead of these other clients. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Hazen NG, LLC v. K&L Gates, LLP, Cause No. DC-13-02198-L, In the 193 rd District Court of Dallas County

Represented an individual and his corporate entity against one of the largest law firms in the Nation located in Dallas. The Firm had represented the clients in a very large oil and gas transaction amongst other clients of the Law Firm. The Law Firm failed to provide adequate conflicts warnings and failed to obtain waiver’s of conflicts in order to push the closing of the deal to the client’s detriment. Therefore, the lawyers placed the interest of itself and the interests of its other clients ahead of their other clients’ interest. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a very substantial confidential amount.

Sirius Energy Corp., et al v. Winstead, PC, et al; Cause No. 2009-43882, In the 164 th District Court of Harris County

Represented oil and gas corporation against Winstead and its oil and gas lawyer, Walter Walne, III wherein the lawyer represented both the buyer and seller of an oil & gas field. The client alleged in the legal malpractice suit that due to the conflict of interest the lawyer put the seller’s interest ahead of the buyer’s interest by failing to insert certain terms into a purchase and sale agreement to protect the buyer from fraud by the seller. The suit alleges that after it became clear that the seller defrauded the buyer, the buyer was helpless to in its action against the seller because the lawyer had intentionally drafted a “side agreement” with the seller to remove the protections the buyer wanted in the purchase and sale agreement. The “side agreement” did not come to light until after litigation arose between the buyer and seller. The legal malpractice case was resolved for a significant confidential amount before trial.

Banks, et al v. Nacol, et al; Cause No. 2013-02096, In the 152 nd District Court of Harris County

Represented clients against Houston Attorney, Michael Nacol and his firm wherein Mr. Nacol borrowed money against the clients’ cases for expenses to develop the cases. This amounted to more than $100,000.00. After Mr. Nacol settled the cases he deducted the expense amount from the clients’ settlement and kept the money for himself. He also did not pay off the loans that were taken out in the clients’ name to fund the case expenses. Mr. Nacol also did not pay the clients’ medical bills from the settlement proceeds although he deducted the amounts from the client’s settlements and simply kept that money as well. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case resulted in a $1,163,265.87 fraud judgment awarded in favor of the clients.

Davis v. John-Babtist A. Sekumade and The Sekumade Law Firm, Cause No. 2011-16071, In the 295 th District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against John Baptist Sukemade. Mr. Sukemade represented the client in a wrongful termination case. After he settled the client’s case without the client’s consent or knowledge, Mr. Sukemade kept all of the settlement proceeds. The client realized the case settled after he received a notice from the IRS to pay taxes on the settlement proceeds. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case resulted in a $1,681,000.00 judgment awarded in favor of the client.

Garza-Martinez v. Watts, et al; Cause No. 2002-56106, In the 190 th District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against Mikal Watts, Denman Heard, law firm and the law firm of Guerra & Moore, LTD. LLP. alleging that they conspired to manufacture venue in Hidalgo County, a plaintiff’s friendly venue. The suit alleged that after a boiler exploded at a resort in Monterey, Mexico, killing 10 and injuring many others, the lawyers at Guerra & Moore sent runners to Mexico to sign up clients. They referred these clients to Watts and Heard. They also signed up Garza who had worked on the boiler before it exploded, promising him millions of dollars. The lawyers also told Garza that his contingency fee to the lawyers would be lower than the rest of the clients they represented and promised to move Garza and his family to the United States, put his kids in an American school and get him a job in America. The suit alleges that once Garza hired Guerra & Moore and moved him to McAllen, Texas, Guerra & Moore had Watts and Heard sue him as a defendant as well as the large manufactures of the boiler in order to manufacture venue in Hidalgo County since that is where the lawyers moved him. After the client’s deposition was taken, the lawyers told him his case was lost and that he had to move back to Mexico. After the client discovered that he had been used and manipulated by the lawyers, he hired the Kassab Law Firm to file legal malpractice actions against these lawyers. Thereafter, the case settled prior to trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Inliner Americas, Inc. Arnold White & Durkee, LLP, Howry, Simon, Arnold & White, LLP, Cause No. 2003-10916, In the 127 th District Court of Harris County

Represented a business client against a national law firm for providing faulty advice regarding patent infringement resulting in litigation against the client. The underlying case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court finally resulting in a judgment against the client in excess of 13 million dollars. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case that followed was resolved before trial for a very substantial confidential amount.

Wonders v. The Matthews Law Firm, PLLC, d/b/a Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, Cause No. 2011-69475, In the 152 nd District Court of Harris County

Represented a firefighter who invented a process to fill life saving oxygen tanks faster at the sight of a fire. The defendant law firm failed to patent the invention for the firefighter in a timely fashion which allowed another company to obtain a patent of virtually the same process. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Interform Incorporated v. The Cooper Law Group, P.C., Cause No. 342-288137-16, In the 342 nd District Court of Tarrant County

Represented corporation and inventor of the soft touch pen against lawyers hired to protect the inventor’s patent and sue numerous large corporations for patent infringement. After settling several patent infringement suits on behalf of Interform, numerous other lawsuits that the lawyers had filed were dismissed. Interform alleged that the lawyers had failed to properly designate an expert witness regarding these other cases in preparation for trial and therefore, simply dismissed the cases rather than lose a Motion for Summary Judgement due to not having an expert witness. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Johnson et al v. L.H. Stewart et al; Cause No. 2008-34904, In the 333 rd District Court of Harris County

Represented beneficiaries of a trust against the lawyer trustee involving a trust funded by mineral interests of the late independent oil pioneer, Jack Josey. The suit alleged that the Trustee convinced beneficiaries to unwittingly sign away their rights to the trust and also sign a release of all claims against the lawyer. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Baca v. Miles, Cause No. 050500376, In the Fifth Judicial District Court, In and For Washington County, State of Utah

Represented a client against a lawyer who was also a certified public accountant. The lawyer/CPA represented the client in the sale of his property located next to a national park. The lawyer/CPA failed to properly protect the client in the sale resulting in liens against the property. The lawyer/CPA then purchased the liens against his client putting his interests ahead of his clients and threatened to foreclose on his client. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Balestra v. Locke, Liddell & Sapp, LLP, et al; Cause No 01-744-E, In the 101 st District Court of Dallas County

Represented a client against a law firm that negligently drafted a deed that conveyed an entire interest to real property instead of fifty percent as intended by the client. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Other Examples

Represented an individual that hired a national law firm to represent him in the sale of his business. The law firm failed to adequately protect the client and failed to provide proper advice regarding accepting stock from the buyer that was used to purchase the individual’s company. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Decagon Company Limited, et al v. Law Offices of Newton B. Schwartz, Sr., et al; Cause No. 2016-47122, In the 295 th District Court of Harris County

Represented clients against two lawyers who were hired to obtain the return of five giant rubies with an estimated appraised value of over 1.8 billion dollars. The clients alleged that after the lawyers entered into a modest fee agreement with the clients, they later changed the fee agreement to their benefit without first advising the clients to obtain outside counsel to approve the changed agreement and with absolutely no disclosures regarding the new fee agreement. The lawyers then changed the fee agreement a second time, again without first advising their clients to obtain outside counsel to approve the changed agreement and with absolutely no disclosures regarding the new fee agreement. The suit alleged that the new agreements changed the Lawyers contingency fee by 400% and doubled their hourly rate. The suit further alleged that neither of the subsequent agreements complied with the rules of professional conduct and both are void as against public policy. The legal malpractice action was resolved to the clients’ complete satisfaction.

Other Examples

Represented clients against a lawyer who attempted to change an hourly contract to a contingency fee agreement during the attorney client relationship. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount. The lawyer has been disbarred and is no longer practicing law.

Represented a client in Arbitration against a lawyer who improperly changed his fee agreement from an hourly rate contract to a contingency fee contract without giving the proper advice pursuant to the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct in a case involving over $8,000,000.00 in Lotto winnings. By improperly changing the fee agreement, the lawyer obtained a win fall of more than a million dollars. Plaintiff was successful in arbitration resulting in the canceling of the contingency fee agreement allowing the client to obtain all that was due to her.

Avila v. Hippard, Yeverino, Eidson & Thompson, an Association of Trial Lawyers, et al; Cause No. 2003-14183, In the 281 st District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against a lawyer representing a client in a medical malpractice case. The lawyer failed to file the case within the statute of limitations and then manufactured documents to make it look like he had in fact filed the lawsuit. Subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount. The lawyer defendant is no longer practicing law.

Garcia v. Tinsman, Scott & Sciano, Inc.; Cause No. 2004-CI-13651, In the 285 th District Court of Bexar County

Represented a client against a law firm in San Antonio that represented the client in a medical malpractice case. The law firm failed to investigate or diligently pursue the case until just before the statute of limitations was about to expire. Rather than protect the client’s rights by filing the lawsuit timely, the law firm manufactured an excuse to give the case back to the client just before the statute of limitations was about to expire leaving the client without a remedy and without time to hire another lawyer. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Ipson v. The Law Offices of Peter Miller, et al; Cause No. CV2006-11134, In the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 1 st Division

Represented a client against a law firm that allowed the statute of limitations to expire in a personal injury case. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Broussard v. Donaldson, et al; Cause No. B-164, 242, In the 60 th District Court of Jefferson County

Represented a client against a lawyer that failed to designate an expert witness to testify regarding the faulty construction of the client’s home. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Farr v. Brackett & Ellis, P.C. et al; Cause No. 352-195205-02, In the 352 nd District Court of Tarrant County

Represented a client against a law firm that promised to collect on a judgment they obtained for the client as part of the attorney/client contract. The judgment was obtained against T. Cullen Davis, one of the wealthiest individuals in the nation ever to be tried for murder. The suit alleged that the law firm allowed the judgment to lapse and become null and void even though it was collectable. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Miller v. Foster, LLP, et. Al.; Cause No. 2017-59170; In the District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against a National immigration law firm that was hired to obtain a temporary work visa and petition for permanent resident status. The suit alleged that the law firm negligently calculated the number of days the client had been in the United States and therefore filed the permanent resident petition too early, resulting in the petition being denied. The Legal Malpractice Case was resolved for a confidential amount.

Prpic v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, PC, et al; Cause No. GN3000932, In the District Court of Travis County

Represented a client against a law firm that failed to renew the client’s work visa resulting in the deportation of the client. The suit alleged that the client was banned from the United States for at least 10 years due to his lawyers’ malfeasance. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Brand v. Burnett, Turner, Gilbreath, PLLC, et al; Cause No. D-1-GN-17-001045, In the 345 th District Court of Travis County

Represented client who hired lawyers for his divorce. Client alleged that during the divorce proceeding, his attorney, James “Jake” Gilbreath secretly negotiated a lucrative business partnership with his ex-wife’s lawyer and law firm. The legal malpractice suit alleged that due to this conflict of interest, Gilbreath convinced the client to have a special master hear the divorce case. The suit alleged that this was done so that Gilbreath could have the divorce case heard and over by the end of the year because he was to start working with the client’s ex-wife’s lawyer as a partner at the beginning of the new year. Thus, just prior to the trial of the divorce, Gilbreath was negotiating his lucrative partnership deal with the client’s ex-wife’s lawyer, participated in forming a new partnership that was registered with the Secretary of State, filled out paperwork for the new partnership and took firm pictures with his new partners for their new website. The suit further alleged that when Gilbreath believed the trial would spill over to the new year, he advised his client that he was going to lose and receive no part of the marital estate valued at more than $2,000,000. Thus, based upon this advice and without any knowledge of the secret negotiations going on behind his back the client settled for peanuts. The legal malpractice case settled prior to trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Holliday v. Dow, Golub, Remels & Beverly, LLP, et al; Cause No. 2013-59816, In the District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against a lawyer handling the client’s divorce. The lawyer failed to diligently investigate the husband’s retirement account resulting in an unequal divorce settlement. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Combe-Ovadia v. The Law Offices of MacCarty & McCarty, et al.; Cause No. 2010-29241, In the District Court of Harris County

Represented a client against a lawyer handling client’s divorce and child custody dispute. The law suit alleged that the lawyer failed to show up for the client’s custody hearing and as a result, the client essentially lost custody of his children while the case was on appeal for more than two years. The Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a confidential amount.

Matassarin v. Matthews & Branscomb, et al; Cause No. 2000-CI-06741, In the 45 th District Court of Bexar County

Represented a client against a law firm that provided faulty advice regarding an ERISA. Based upon the erroneous advice the client filed an ERISA suit. The suit was found to be a frivolous suit and the client was sanctioned for the defendant’s attorney’s fees that were in excess of six figures. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Miscellaneous

Represented a client against a lawyer and a CPA firm for providing faulty advice regarding tax litigation. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Technical Specialty Products, LLC v. Chamblee, Ryan, Kershaw & Anderson, PC, et al; Cause No. DC-15-04266, In the 160 th District Court of Dallas County.

Represented a business client against a law firm that represented the client in a breach of contract case. The client filed the suit and was then countersued. Due to the negligence of the lawyers, the client lost the suit and also had a judgment entered against it for more than one million dollars. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

Miscellaneous

Represented a client against a lawyer that defended the client in a fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract case were the client was accused of personally spending partnership money. At trial in the underlying case, the lawyer failed to introduce any of the bank statements, ledgers or any other financial documentation to prove that the client was actually due more than he spent personally. Thus, the client was found liable in the underlying case. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a substantial confidential amount.

House, et al v. The O’Quinn Law Firm, et al; Cause No. 392,247-404, In the Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County;

Represented over 1000 clients against John O’Quinn and his law firm arising out of the firm’s silicosis docket. Several lawsuits were filed in Texas and Mississippi. The suits alleged barratry, failing to properly designate experts and failing to diligently process numerous settlements with the underlying defendants amounting to millions of dollars among many other things. The subsequent Legal Malpractice Case was resolved before trial for a very substantial confidential amount.

Nguyen, et al v. Mikal Watts, et al; Cause No. 2016-13749, In the 55 th District Court of Harris County

Currently represent more than 400 clients against Mikal Watts, Robert Hilliard and their respective law firms alleging that these lawyers conspired to commit barratry by paying runners approximately $10,000,000.00 dollars for illegally soliciting approximately 40,000 potential clients arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. The suit also alleges that Watts and Hilliard filed suits on behalf of individuals without their consent or authorization.

Berry et al v. Pohl, et al; Cause No. 2017-37567, In the 113 th District Court of Harris County and Brumfield d/b/a LAD Enterprises, et al v. Williamson, et al; Cause No. 2017-38294, In the 189 th District Court of Harris County

Currently represent more than 400 clients against Michael Pohl, Jimmy Williamson, Cyndi Rusnak and their respective law firms alleging that these lawyers conspired to commit barratry by paying runners millions of dollars to illegally solicit thousands of potential clients arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster.

The Kassab Law Firm has also represented expert witnesses and business that have been hired by lawyers and law firms only to be stiffed for their fees. The Kassab Law Firm has sued numerous lawyers and law firms including Brent Coon and Associates, Mattingly & Marsh, LLP and Ramey & Schwaller, LLP for breach of contract after these lawyers and firms refused to pay these contractors for their hard work.