Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Did You Expect to Be Paid Too?
Usually, when a family-law attorney takes on a divorce case, it's with the expectation that at some time before or after the work on the case is completed, he or she will be paid for services rendered. Sure, attorneys often have trouble getting paid by their clients, who may not have the necessary funds at their disposal, but when a client cannot pay, the attorney has other means, including turning to the court for assistance in getting payment from the opposing spouse. But suppose the client discharges the attorney from the case before the divorce is finalized? The option of seeking redress by asking the court to compel the client's spouse to pay is foreclosed, according to a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in the case of Frankel v. Frankel, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9279 (App. Div., 2d Dept. 9/8/03).
In the underlying matrimonial action, attorneys from the firm of Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos, Poepplein & Taub, PLLC, Mineola, represented the wife during more than 30 days of the child-custody phase of the couple's trial. During that phase of the trial, the husband was ordered to pay his wife's attorneys $25,000 in pendente lite fees. However, less than a month later, the wife had discharged her attorneys, as reflected on the record on March 30, 2001. Also on that date (after the attorneys had been discharged), an attorney for the firm indicated on the record that the firm was asserting a lien on the wife's file and intended to apply for its accrued legal fees.
The wife hired new attorneys to represent her. On April 27, 2001, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement that provided, among other things, that each party would be responsible for his or her own legal fees. A month later, the former attorneys moved against the husband to recover the wife's unpaid legal fees in the amount of $94,000. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the motion in part, finding that the husband could be liable for his wife's fees, but referred the matter to a referee for determination of the amount. The husband appealed.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.