professional malpractice

Plaintiff, while walking in the poorly lit parking lot of his apartment complex, fell into a non-visible hole in the surface of the parking lot and suffered severe injuries. He hired defendant attorneys who mis-calendared the date of the incident and filed the complaint beyond the statute of limitations. Defendants alleged plaintiff could not establish causation because there was no evidence the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the hole.

Plaintiffs owned restaurants and franchises. They sued defendant accounting firms alleging (1) substantial errors in tax returns resulting in IRS and FTB audits; (2) failure to warn plaintiffs of non-compliance with GAAP in their financial statements and (3) refusal to return client files needed to comply with IRS requests for information for IRS audits.

In an underlying transaction, defendant attorney represented a seller of his stock in privately held corporation which owned a trucking company. The other shareholders structured the deal so as to fund the purchase with a note signed by the corporation’s ESOP which was guaranteed by the other shareholders. When the seller sued on the note and guaranty, defendants raised multiple defenses under ERISA. Seller settled the case against the ESOP and shareholders at a discount due to the defenses and sued attorney for malpractice. He admittedly had no familiarity with ERISA.

Plaintiff alleged that her CPA and financial advisor who handled her accounts systematically misappropriated funds from her trust accounts by transferring them into other accounts he maintained at the bank. The case against the bank was consolidated with plaintiff’s action against the estate of the CPA/financial advisor, as well as his accounting firm.

Plaintiff’s husband was murdered. Plaintiff alleged that very shortly thereafter, her father-in-law and defendant attorney, ostensibly plaintiff’s attorney, convinced her to sign various documents by fraud and undue influence without explaining their true meaning, which documents had the effect of placing all of the life insurance proceeds plaintiff would have received as a result of her husband’s murder, under the control of her father-in-law. Plaintiff also sought damages for legal malpractice against defendant attorney, and damages against defendant insurer for allegedly paying the life insurance proceeds to her father-in-law without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.