Legal Malpractice

Attorneys Sued, but not in Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Attorney being sued in legal malpractice - not a big story.  Attorney settling and paying $ 25 Million in malicious prosecution ?  Big story.  Here is the enormous settlement story from Brian Baxter of the New York Law Journal..

"Ending 13 years of litigation, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has agreed to pay $25 million in damages to Los Angeles businessman Stewart Resnick and his wife, Lynda, in a case that began over trademark and advertising claims related to the late Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales.

The Resnicks once owned The Franklin Mint, which produced a commemorative plate, purse and porcelain doll using the princess' likeness after she was killed in a 1997 car crash in Paris. Manatt and IP partner Mark Lee, representing Diana's estate and a memorial fund set up in her name, sued The Franklin Mint for trademark dilution and false advertising, claiming that their client's likeness had been used without permission to market memorabilia.

Former U.S. District Judge Florence Marie Cooper of the Central District of California dismissed the case on summary judgment in 2000, calling it "groundless" and "unreasonable," while awarding The Franklin Mint and its attorneys $2.3 million in legal fees under a provision contained in the Lanham Act. The Franklin Mint then sued Manatt, Mr. Lee and Diana's estate and memorial fund for malicious prosecution in 2002, claiming that the litigation was an attempt to hurt the company's Diana-related sales.

The Franklin Mint, owned by the Resnicks through their Roll Global holding company, was particularly incensed about a passage in Manatt's complaint comparing the company to "vultures feeding on the dead." The Franklin Mint's lawyers at Loeb & Loeb, led by partner Andrew Clare, argued that such an allegation damaged their clients' reputation. The Franklin Mint, based in Exton, Pa., was sold in 2006 to a group led by executives from The Morgan Mint.

Diana's estate and charity trust fund settled The Franklin Mint's claims against them in 2004 for $25 million, all of which the Resnicks said they donated to charity.

Manatt, however, continued the fight. After a 17-day trial two years ago, a Los Angeles Municipal Court judge granted the firm's motion for dismissal of the suit, effectively ending the case in the firm's favor.

That decision was overturned last May when California's Second District Court of Appeal handed down a 3-2 ruling in which it held that Manatt and Mr. Lee did not have probable cause to file the initial claims against The Franklin Mint and the Resnicks. The ruling also revived the malicious prosecution case. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld partners L. Rachel Helyar and Rex Heinke represented The Franklin Mint on appeal.

Manatt hired Kathleen Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who filed a 41-page cert petition in June asking the Supreme Court of California to review various legal issues in the case. Ms. Sullivan focused on a dissenting opinion of one appellate court judge who objected to Manatt being targeted for damages because it was on the losing side of a case for its client."
 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on January 24, 2011 (boomark / email).