Counsel Concerns

Legal Malpractice/Damage Award Testimony

The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a legal malpractice judgment against a law firm that represented the plaintiff client in a suit over a sports publishing company he had co-founded. Margolin v. Kleban and Samor P.C., SC 17388. Kleban and Samor had represented Robert J. Margolin in a suit against Margolin's former business partner in Professional Team Publications. That suit had alleged that Margolin's partner Peter C. Jacquith had tortiously interfered with Margolin's publishing-employment contract, fraudulently induced and defamed Margolin. Margolin obtained a default judgment but was unable to find Jaquith to collect on the ruling. Margolin then sued Kleban and Samor for failure to request or get him a prejudgment remedy against Jaquith. The trial court awarded $1,040,183 to Margolin in the malpractice action.

Kleban and Samor argued on appeal that Margolin had failed to admit written proof in the malpractice trial of the judgment Margolin had obtained against Jaquith. But the supreme court noted that Margolin's “testimony that the damage award in the default action was the exact amount requested in the complaint, together with the admission of the complaint into evidence as a full exhibit, constituted sufficient evidence of the amount of the judgment. The failure to present a transcript of the hearing in damages or a certified copy of the judgment did not render the admitted evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.”

Kleban and Samor then argued in part that in any case Margolin hadn't shown that the law firm's failure to procure a prejudgment remedy had prevented Margolin from recovering damages. But the supreme court determined: “We conclude that the [Margolin's] evidence that Jaquith was impoverished and that multiple individuals with financial incentive to find him were unable to do so … was sufficient to support an inference by the jury that the judgment against him was uncollectible. The default judgment was entered after Jaquith's unsuccessful treatment for substance abuse and after the loss of his assets in [a] divorce.”

Legal Malpractice/Damage Award Testimony

The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a legal malpractice judgment against a law firm that represented the plaintiff client in a suit over a sports publishing company he had co-founded. Margolin v. Kleban and Samor P.C., SC 17388. Kleban and Samor had represented Robert J. Margolin in a suit against Margolin's former business partner in Professional Team Publications. That suit had alleged that Margolin's partner Peter C. Jacquith had tortiously interfered with Margolin's publishing-employment contract, fraudulently induced and defamed Margolin. Margolin obtained a default judgment but was unable to find Jaquith to collect on the ruling. Margolin then sued Kleban and Samor for failure to request or get him a prejudgment remedy against Jaquith. The trial court awarded $1,040,183 to Margolin in the malpractice action.

Kleban and Samor argued on appeal that Margolin had failed to admit written proof in the malpractice trial of the judgment Margolin had obtained against Jaquith. But the supreme court noted that Margolin's “testimony that the damage award in the default action was the exact amount requested in the complaint, together with the admission of the complaint into evidence as a full exhibit, constituted sufficient evidence of the amount of the judgment. The failure to present a transcript of the hearing in damages or a certified copy of the judgment did not render the admitted evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.”

Kleban and Samor then argued in part that in any case Margolin hadn't shown that the law firm's failure to procure a prejudgment remedy had prevented Margolin from recovering damages. But the supreme court determined: “We conclude that the [Margolin's] evidence that Jaquith was impoverished and that multiple individuals with financial incentive to find him were unable to do so … was sufficient to support an inference by the jury that the judgment against him was uncollectible. The default judgment was entered after Jaquith's unsuccessful treatment for substance abuse and after the loss of his assets in [a] divorce.”