Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Entertainment Law & FinanceLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Counsel Concerns

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
September 01, 2006

Malpractice Claims and Estoppel. The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Seven, allowed former law-firm clients an opportunity to amend their legal-malpractice complaint against the firm Girardi & Keese for litigation work over rights to the 'Nicky Moonbeam' children's concept. Cavalier v. Lira, B185402. Wanda and Christopher Cavalier had already sued their prior lawyer, Martina Silas, over her handling of the Moonbeam litigation. The trial court in the latest malpractice action found the Cavaliers' claim in the earlier suit that Silas's conduct resulted in an unfavorable settlement of federal Moonbeam litigation estopped the Cavaliers from now proceeding with a similar claim against Girardi & Keese. Reversing and remanding, the court of appeal determined, among other things: 'Although the complaint in the Silas malpractice action alleges the ultimate settlement amount ($150,000) that resulted from the events Silas's negligence set in motion ' rather than alleging in a more general fashion that her negligence reduced the value of the Cavaliers' claims ' the Girardi & Keese complaint, liberally construed, asserts the firm's subsequent acts of negligence further depressed the already greatly reduced value of the federal action.' But the Court of Appeal added that the Cavaliers' complaint against Girardi & Keese as currently stated was 'inartful,' because it included 'the precise amount of the settlement agreement as the basis for their damages claims against Silas, which, if read literally rather than construed liberally, leaves no room for further reduction in the settlement value of the federal action as a result of Girardi & Keese's alleged negligence.'

Malpractice Claims and Estoppel. The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Seven, allowed former law-firm clients an opportunity to amend their legal-malpractice complaint against the firm Girardi & Keese for litigation work over rights to the 'Nicky Moonbeam' children's concept. Cavalier v. Lira, B185402. Wanda and Christopher Cavalier had already sued their prior lawyer, Martina Silas, over her handling of the Moonbeam litigation. The trial court in the latest malpractice action found the Cavaliers' claim in the earlier suit that Silas's conduct resulted in an unfavorable settlement of federal Moonbeam litigation estopped the Cavaliers from now proceeding with a similar claim against Girardi & Keese. Reversing and remanding, the court of appeal determined, among other things: 'Although the complaint in the Silas malpractice action alleges the ultimate settlement amount ($150,000) that resulted from the events Silas's negligence set in motion ' rather than alleging in a more general fashion that her negligence reduced the value of the Cavaliers' claims ' the Girardi & Keese complaint, liberally construed, asserts the firm's subsequent acts of negligence further depressed the already greatly reduced value of the federal action.' But the Court of Appeal added that the Cavaliers' complaint against Girardi & Keese as currently stated was 'inartful,' because it included 'the precise amount of the settlement agreement as the basis for their damages claims against Silas, which, if read literally rather than construed liberally, leaves no room for further reduction in the settlement value of the federal action as a result of Girardi & Keese's alleged negligence.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

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?