Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Counsel Concerns

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
November 29, 2005

Legal Malpractice/Damage Award Testimony

The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a legal malpractice judgment against a law firm that represented the plaintiff client in a suit over a sports publishing company he had co-founded. Margolin v. Kleban and Samor P.C., SC 17388. Kleban and Samor had represented Robert J. Margolin in a suit against Margolin's former business partner in Professional Team Publications. That suit had alleged that Margolin's partner Peter C. Jacquith had tortiously interfered with Margolin's publishing-employment contract, fraudulently induced and defamed Margolin. Margolin obtained a default judgment but was unable to find Jaquith to collect on the ruling. Margolin then sued Kleban and Samor for failure to request or get him a prejudgment remedy against Jaquith. The trial court awarded $1,040,183 to Margolin in the malpractice action.

Kleban and Samor argued on appeal that Margolin had failed to admit written proof in the malpractice trial of the judgment Margolin had obtained against Jaquith. But the supreme court noted that Margolin's “testimony that the damage award in the default action was the exact amount requested in the complaint, together with the admission of the complaint into evidence as a full exhibit, constituted sufficient evidence of the amount of the judgment. The failure to present a transcript of the hearing in damages or a certified copy of the judgment did not render the admitted evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.