Litigation

Judge Tosses Legal Malpractice Suit Against Fox Rothschild

A Philadelphia judge has tossed out an attorney's legal malpractice lawsuit against his former divorce attorney because the lawyer plaintiff did not obtain an expert witness.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Marlene F. Lachman told the state Superior Court that the summary judgment she issued in favor of law firm Fox Rothschild should be upheld because plaintiff Mark B. Frost, a lawyer with Mark B. Frost & Associates in Philadelphia, did not obtain an expert witness. Expert testimony was necessary to make out Frost's case because the profession of lawyering and the standards by which the profession are judged are beyond the knowledge of most lay jurors, Lachman said in Frost v. Fox Rothschild.

Frost sued Fox Rothschild over the firm's representation of him during his divorce, which was litigated in New Jersey Superior Court for Burlington County, Chancery Division/Family Part, the opinion said. Former Fox Rothschild attorney Barbara Ulrichsen represented Frost from 2004 to 2007, and a final judgment was entered in the divorce in August 2006, Lachman said.

Frost alleged that Ulrichsen failed to reach a settlement agreement on his behalf; failed to obtain a vocational expert to testify on his ex-wife's earning potential; failed to reach a settlement agreement as authorized by Frost; breached attorney-client confidentiality; and negligently caused Frost to pay $19,835 of his ex-wife's expert witness fees and $48,367 of her attorney fees and costs, among other allegations.

Fox Rothschild argued that “the standard of care issues in this case were complex and were beyond the ordinary understanding of a juror so that expert testimony was needed,” while Frost argued that “the standard of care issues were so simple that the jury could understand them without the need for an expert,” Lachman said.

Some legal malpractice allegations do not require expert witnesses, including when attorneys allegedly fail to communicate settlement offers or fail to communicate clients' acceptances of settlement offers, Lachman said. But in a case like this one, the judge wrote, “the standard of care required of an attorney representing a client going through a divorce and receiving a proposed divorce settlement is a question of fact outside the normal range of the ordinary experience of lay persons.”

And expert testimony was necessary to address whether Ulrichsen breached the standard of care required of an attorney negotiating a marital property settlement and if Ulrichsen's alleged legal malpractice was the proximate cause of Frost's alleged damages, Lachman said.

Frost also argued that his divorce attorney was negligent in failing to obtain a vocational expert, but he testified that he was not upset over a lack of a vocational expert because he thought the chances of settling the case were good, Lachman said. Whether Ulrichsen failed to exercise the reasonable degree of care required of divorce attorneys by not getting a vocational expert is a question of fact on which Frost needed to obtain an expert witness, Lachman said.

Lachman also said Frost did not present evidence that Ulrichsen breached attorney-client confidentiality. ' Amaris Elliot-Engel

Private Citizen Seeks to Overturn $1.6 Mil. Award in Malicious Prosecution Case

A nasty divorce and allegations of insurance fraud by an ex-wife against her former husband resulted in a $1.63 million verdict for the husband in a malicious prosecution case he brought against her.

In post-trial motions filed after the verdict in Snyder v. Glass, Nancy Glass' attorney, Michael A. Schwartz of Pepper Hamilton, is now arguing that the case never should have been brought to a jury trial as a matter of law, contending that a private citizen who gives a tip to law enforcement about a crime that is later corroborated cannot be held personally liable when the object of that tip is later found innocent.

Mark B. Snyder's attorney, Lawrence R. Woehrle of Sprague & Sprague, admitted that malicious prosecution cases against private citizens are tough to win.

Glass, a long-time Philadelphia-area TV personality, argued in post-trial motions that the Philadelphia detective assigned to investigate her tip that Snyder submitted extra items on his insurance claim after his dental practice was robbed had interviewed at least 20 people other than Glass and then decided to press charges.

The office where Snyder conducted his dental practice was robbed in 2001, shortly before he and his wife separated and divorced, according to court papers. He made a claim to his insurance company for 60 missing items totaling more than $71,000 and was reimbursed for all of them. Nearly four years later and after their divorce was final, Glass called the National Insurance Crime Bureau in March 2005 and the District Attorney's Office and told them that six of those items were falsely submitted to the insurance company as being stolen. They included a Hermes leather briefcase, a Bulgari watch, an IBM computer, a suitcase, another briefcase and a set of dental instruments, according to pretrial memorandums in the malicious prosecution case.

Snyder was later arrested and charged with insurance fraud, and stood trial in Philadelphia in October 2008. The trial judge instructed the jury that if it felt Snyder falsely reported even one of the six items, it could find him guilty. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, according to court documents.

Woehrle and Richard Sprague of Sprague & Sprague represented Snyder in the criminal prosecution and Woerhle then represented him in the malicious prosecution case. Snyder sought from Glass the nearly $631,000 in attorney fees and costs for his criminal trial, as well as damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. The total demand going into trial was $1 million and the offer was $50,000, according to the court papers. ' Gina Passarella

Judge Tosses Legal Malpractice Suit Against Fox Rothschild

A Philadelphia judge has tossed out an attorney's legal malpractice lawsuit against his former divorce attorney because the lawyer plaintiff did not obtain an expert witness.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Marlene F. Lachman told the state Superior Court that the summary judgment she issued in favor of law firm Fox Rothschild should be upheld because plaintiff Mark B. Frost, a lawyer with Mark B. Frost & Associates in Philadelphia, did not obtain an expert witness. Expert testimony was necessary to make out Frost's case because the profession of lawyering and the standards by which the profession are judged are beyond the knowledge of most lay jurors, Lachman said in Frost v. Fox Rothschild.

Frost sued Fox Rothschild over the firm's representation of him during his divorce, which was litigated in New Jersey Superior Court for Burlington County, Chancery Division/Family Part, the opinion said. Former Fox Rothschild attorney Barbara Ulrichsen represented Frost from 2004 to 2007, and a final judgment was entered in the divorce in August 2006, Lachman said.

Frost alleged that Ulrichsen failed to reach a settlement agreement on his behalf; failed to obtain a vocational expert to testify on his ex-wife's earning potential; failed to reach a settlement agreement as authorized by Frost; breached attorney-client confidentiality; and negligently caused Frost to pay $19,835 of his ex-wife's expert witness fees and $48,367 of her attorney fees and costs, among other allegations.

Fox Rothschild argued that “the standard of care issues in this case were complex and were beyond the ordinary understanding of a juror so that expert testimony was needed,” while Frost argued that “the standard of care issues were so simple that the jury could understand them without the need for an expert,” Lachman said.

Some legal malpractice allegations do not require expert witnesses, including when attorneys allegedly fail to communicate settlement offers or fail to communicate clients' acceptances of settlement offers, Lachman said. But in a case like this one, the judge wrote, “the standard of care required of an attorney representing a client going through a divorce and receiving a proposed divorce settlement is a question of fact outside the normal range of the ordinary experience of lay persons.”

And expert testimony was necessary to address whether Ulrichsen breached the standard of care required of an attorney negotiating a marital property settlement and if Ulrichsen's alleged legal malpractice was the proximate cause of Frost's alleged damages, Lachman said.

Frost also argued that his divorce attorney was negligent in failing to obtain a vocational expert, but he testified that he was not upset over a lack of a vocational expert because he thought the chances of settling the case were good, Lachman said. Whether Ulrichsen failed to exercise the reasonable degree of care required of divorce attorneys by not getting a vocational expert is a question of fact on which Frost needed to obtain an expert witness, Lachman said.

Lachman also said Frost did not present evidence that Ulrichsen breached attorney-client confidentiality. ' Amaris Elliot-Engel

Private Citizen Seeks to Overturn $1.6 Mil. Award in Malicious Prosecution Case

A nasty divorce and allegations of insurance fraud by an ex-wife against her former husband resulted in a $1.63 million verdict for the husband in a malicious prosecution case he brought against her.

In post-trial motions filed after the verdict in Snyder v. Glass, Nancy Glass' attorney, Michael A. Schwartz of Pepper Hamilton, is now arguing that the case never should have been brought to a jury trial as a matter of law, contending that a private citizen who gives a tip to law enforcement about a crime that is later corroborated cannot be held personally liable when the object of that tip is later found innocent.

Mark B. Snyder's attorney, Lawrence R. Woehrle of Sprague & Sprague, admitted that malicious prosecution cases against private citizens are tough to win.

Glass, a long-time Philadelphia-area TV personality, argued in post-trial motions that the Philadelphia detective assigned to investigate her tip that Snyder submitted extra items on his insurance claim after his dental practice was robbed had interviewed at least 20 people other than Glass and then decided to press charges.

The office where Snyder conducted his dental practice was robbed in 2001, shortly before he and his wife separated and divorced, according to court papers. He made a claim to his insurance company for 60 missing items totaling more than $71,000 and was reimbursed for all of them. Nearly four years later and after their divorce was final, Glass called the National Insurance Crime Bureau in March 2005 and the District Attorney's Office and told them that six of those items were falsely submitted to the insurance company as being stolen. They included a Hermes leather briefcase, a Bulgari watch, an IBM computer, a suitcase, another briefcase and a set of dental instruments, according to pretrial memorandums in the malicious prosecution case.

Snyder was later arrested and charged with insurance fraud, and stood trial in Philadelphia in October 2008. The trial judge instructed the jury that if it felt Snyder falsely reported even one of the six items, it could find him guilty. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, according to court documents.

Woehrle and Richard Sprague of Sprague & Sprague represented Snyder in the criminal prosecution and Woerhle then represented him in the malicious prosecution case. Snyder sought from Glass the nearly $631,000 in attorney fees and costs for his criminal trial, as well as damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. The total demand going into trial was $1 million and the offer was $50,000, according to the court papers. ' Gina Passarella