Selecting
a legal malpractice attorney for your legal case is a very important decision. Please enter a zip code to find an attorney that serves your area:
This legal malpractice action stems from a federal racketeering prosecution and related civil recovery action against the former personal injury law firm Morris J. Eisen, P.C. and its sole shareholder, Morris J. Eisen, alleging they had fabricated evidence and bribed witnesses to obtain verdicts and settlements against New York City and other defendants. Eisen and several attorneys and investigators affiliated with his firm were convicted of federal racketeering and conspiracy charges in 1991, and Eisen was disbarred in 1992. In 1995, the City was awarded partial summary judgment in its civil action against the Eisen firm to recover funds it had expended to settle or pay judgments in three personal injury cases that figured in the racketeering prosecution. The law firm of Larossa, Mitchell & Ross defended Eisen and his law firm in both the criminal and civil proceedings. After his disbarment, Eisen amended his firm's certificate of incorporation in 1992 to change its name to Landau, P.C. and make his daughter the president and sole shareholder. In December 1992, Eisen filed documents to liquidate the Landau firm and assign all its assets to himself. In 1997, the Secretary of State dissolved Landau for failure to pay franchise fees.
In 1998, Eisen and the Eisen firm commenced a legal malpractice action against Larossa, Mitchell & Ross, alleging it had provided an inadequate defense in the City's civil action. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling Eisen lacked standing to sue because, due to his conviction and disbarment, he had no interest in the Eisen firm. The court ruled the Eisen firm lacked capacity to sue because its successor, Landau, had been dissolved, either by Eisen in 1992 or by the Secretary of State in 1997. Landau subsequently paid its delinquent franchise fees and the Secretary of State's dissolution order was annulled. Eisen and the Eisen firm then sought leave to reargue and permission to add Landau as a plaintiff. Supreme Court denied the motion based on the plaintiffs' "failure to provide reasonable justification for their delay in taking the necessary steps to revive Landau."
Eisen and Landau commenced this action against Larossa, Mitchell & Ross in 2001, asserting the same legal malpractice claims as in the first action. Supreme Court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of res judicata, saying the plaintiffs were barred from relitigating issues raised in the first action. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, splitting 3-2 on whether Landau's claims were properly dismissed. The majority said, "In a previous order, affirmed by this court..., leave to add Landau, P.C. as a party plaintiff as successor to Eisen, P.C. was denied on the ground that plaintiffs had previously failed to provide reasonable justification for the delay in taking the necessary steps to revive that entity. Since absolutely none of the circumstances surrounding that decision have changed, we decline to reconsider the issue, or to overrule it by allowing Landau, P.C. to commence a new action." The dissenters said, in part, "Neither a dismissal for lack of standing nor lack of capacity poses an absolute bar to a new action because neither reflects a disposition on the underlying merits of the claims.... Instead, such are 'objections in mere abatement' ... which do not preclude a new action if the objection is cured or otherwise rectified..."
For appellant Landau: John P. Coffey, Manhattan (212) 554-1400 For respondents Larossa, Mitchell & Ross et al: Nancy A. Breslow, Manhattan (212) 697-3122
Florida Legal Ethics For Referring Attorneys... Cornell Law School, Jul 14, 2008
A referring attorney may be held liable for the malpractice of a lawyer to whom a client has been referred, if the referring lawyer retains a financial interest in the cl...
Landau, P.C. v Larossa, Mitchell & Ross... New York State Unified Court System, Jun 19, 2008
This legal malpractice action stems from a federal racketeering prosecution and related civil recovery...
Each year lawyers that commit legal malpractice overcharge fees, lose cases, or neglect their client’s needs and statistics show approximately 35,000 legal malpractice cases occur each year.
Emotional Distress can be sought in legal malpractice cases
After losing your legal case because of your lawyer, there is traumatic emotional distress build up from the previous case and now combined with the malpractice from this lawyer, you are faced with more emotional problems and are entitled to compensation.
Legal Disclaimers All attorney listings are a paid attorney advertisement, and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by an approved or authorized lawyer referral service. The information provided on Legal Malpractice Law Firms.com is not intended to be legal advice, but
merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. Please contact a local attorney in your area for official legal and law information.
Your access to and use of this website is subject to additional
Terms and Conditions.
Local Professional? Generate new business today
Call 866-227-9356 or contact a sales rep
Legal Malpractice Newsroom
