Around The Firm

Joel E. Wright, Alison H. Grennan, and William L. Cameron won the appeal of Goldberg v. Wolf, as special administrator for the Estate of Preslzer, an accounting-malpractice action. Plaintiff claimed that his father's estate was harmed when it was ordered, in a separate lawsuit, to re-pay his mother more than $1 million to compensate her for community funds that had been wrongfully converted to the father’s separate property more than 30 years earlier. The plaintiff alleged that the father’s accountant had given the father bad advice that the conversion of funds was proper under community-property laws. The accountant had died, so plaintiff sued the accountant’s estate. Joel, Alison, and Bill had moved for summary judgment and won, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal. The appellate court held that the husband’s estate could not show damages, since it had been compelled to return money the husband wrongfully acquired in the first place. The Court of Appeals also held that the attorney fees that the husband’s estate incurred were not damages, as the husband’s estate voluntarily chose to defend against the wife's action when the property did not belong to the husband’s estate.

William H. Waechter won a nine-day jury trial in Culley v. Langlow, an auto case. Plaintiff was rear-ended, so that liability was clear. Plaintiff claimed severe brain damage and an inability to work or engage in many of the activities of daily living. Plaintiff claimed millions of dollars in damages. The Lee Smart firm was asked to take over the case from another firm when trial was imminent, because the previous firm had violated several pretrial deadlines and failed to prepare the case for trial. As a result, the defendant’s insurer faced the prospect of paying its $1.5 million policy limit or more. Bill and Sean D. Jackson immediately moved for a continuance. Bill then deposed lay witnesses and the treating physicians, all of whom supported plaintiff’s brain-damage claim, and lined up defense experts. The insurer remained so concerned that it entered into a high-low agreement with the plaintiff that guranteed plaintiff at least a $250,000 payment but limited the award to $1.25 million; plaintiff would receive the amount of the verdict if it was between those two figures. After a hard-fought trial, the jury returned a verdict of $203,000, less 51 percent contributory fault for plaintiff’s failure by not following his doctors’ recommended treatment plans. The net verdict was less than $100,000.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc. for clients and others. It is intended as general information only and is not to be construed as legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have any specific legal questions.

Editor: Jeffrey P. Downer	Eml: jpd@leesmart.com
Phone: 206.621.3482	Toll Free: 877.624.7990