Around The Firm

This holiday season, Lee Smart lawyers and staff participated in a food drive to benefit the Northwest Harvest food bank. The firm divided into four teams and competed to see who would collect the most non-perishable items to donate to this worthy cause. The firm collected 2,300 pounds of food, which will provide meals to roughly 750 families.

David L. Martin won a defense jury verdict in Vandervort v. Agtarap, a one-week medical-malpractice case. The defendant orthopedic surgeon performed a knee replacement that later failed. Plaintiff had unequal leg lengths that she alleged resulted from or contributed to her continuing problems. Her expert orthopedist testified that the defendant physician should have shortened the longer leg when operating on the knee. Plaintiff alleged $300,000 in medical bills and wage loss, and her counsel asked the jury to award $700,000. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense.

Sam B. Franklin and William R. Kiendl won summary judgment in Miller v. Eisenhower & Carlson. Plaintiff was a former elected official who also was a land developer. He sued Sam and Bill’s client, a lawyer who made allegedly defamatory statements about plaintiff and his land development. The court agreed with Sam and Bill that under the First Amendment, plaintiff was a public figure, so that he must prove that the defendant committed “actual malice,” which required proof by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the defendant made the statements with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of their truth. Because plaintiff could not overcome that high standard of proof, the court granted Sam and Bill’s motion. … Sam Franklin and Rosemary J. Moore won dismissal of all claims in the case of Martin v. Ellis. The plaintiff alleged that the personal representative of an estate was negligent and in breach of statutory and fiduciary duties for failing to pursue claims of misconduct against the former personal representative of the estate and the estate’s attorneys. Among other things, Sam and Rosemary argued that there was no breach of duty. The personal representative was expressly prohibited from pursuing claims by the terms of her appointment, she had a duty not to waste assets pursuing speculative claims, and the court had approved her conduct when the plaintiff had raised his criticisms in the probate court; therefore, the claim was also barred by the principle of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff also could not show that he had suffered damage, in part because he had purchased the estate’s claims against the former administrator and therefore his claim was also barred by judicial estoppel.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee Smart, 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