Wolf Block Moves for Stay of Legal Malpractice Suit

Wolf Block and a number of former partners are seeking a stay of a legal malpractice lawsuit brought against them by car dealership owner Alan Potamkin over the firm's drafting of a prenuptial agreement.

The Suit

Potamkin is in the midst of a divorce action in Florida in which the validity of the prenuptial agreement has been brought into question. He entered a tolling agreement with Wolf Block to toll the statute of limitations while his attorneys, as well as lawyers for Wolf Block, attempted to enforce the prenuptial agreement in the divorce action. When the Florida judge denied summary judgment on the issue and ruled discovery of assets should continue, Potamkin filed the complaint in the malpractice case in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

Wolf Block, through its attorney, Nicholas M. Centrella of Conrad O'Brien, requested the Philadelphia court issue a stay in the malpractice action until the divorce is finalized. In denying summary judgment, the Florida court ruled the prenuptial agreement does not conclusively establish that either party waived equitable distribution of the assets. Wolf Block now counters that the Florida ruling was simply an interlocutory ruling that denied summary judgment and did not determine the legal effect of the prenuptial agreement.

Until the Florida court enters judgment assessing damages, if any, against the plaintiff in the divorce action on the basis of its interpretation of the prenuptial agreement and post-trial remedies are pursued to completion, the scope of the plaintiff's claims and the alleged damages he purportedly suffered will not be known.

Wolf Block's Motion

Wolf Block said in its motion to stay and supporting brief that it understood Potamkin had to file the suit before the completion of the divorce action because of statute of limitations concerns. But it said the state Supreme Court's 1993 opinion in Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1993), allows for the defense to file preliminary objections and seek a stay, at which point the trial court shall then reserve its ruling until resolution of the underlying action.

Background

Potamkin and his family had hired Wolf Block for business, financial and personal matters starting in the early 1970s. Potamkin hired the firm in 1983 to write up a prenuptial agreement in advance of his Oct. 1, 1983, marriage to Claudia Forman. David R. Glyn, then a Wolf Block partner under the supervision of then-partner David J. Kaufman, was assigned to draft the agreement under Florida law, according to the complaint.

The additional 54 named defendants were all general partners of the firm in 1983. Glyn, Kaufman and the other defendants are being sued individually and as trading as Wolf Block. The firm is listed as a defendant as well. According to the complaint, the agreement was supposed to establish a formula for what Potamkin would have to pay Forman if they divorced or separated. The attorneys, Potamkin said in the complaint, were supposed to make the prenuptial agreement iron clad so that no judge could later interpret it to impose greater or lesser financial obligations on Alan Potamkin in the event of a divorce.

But in January 2007, a month after Potamkin and Forman decided to divorce, Forman informed Potamkin that her lawyers did not think the prenuptial agreement limited his financial obligations as envisioned by the agreement, according to the complaint.

Potamkin's complaint argues that the prenuptial agreement failed to take into account any potential future changes in Florida law or necessary waivers that should have been included. The agreement was drafted before Florida adopted an equitable distribution law. In filing for divorce in Miami-Dade County in October 2007, Forman demanded an equitable distribution of the assets, according to the complaint.

FL Court's Initial Decision

The Florida court's initial decision on summary judgment came down on Sept. 11, 2009. The judge denied a request for reconsideration on June 28, 2010. Potamkin's attorney, Joseph R. Podraza Jr. of Sprague & Sprague, said that statute of limitations concerns forced them to file the writ in the malpractice case in March 2010. The complaint was then filed in early July.

Unless it is settled, the divorce litigation is currently scheduled for trial. Potamkin's damages in the malpractice case cannot be determined until the distribution of assets is decided.

Gina Passarella is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article originally appeared.

Wolf Block and a number of former partners are seeking a stay of a legal malpractice lawsuit brought against them by car dealership owner Alan Potamkin over the firm's drafting of a prenuptial agreement.

The Suit

Potamkin is in the midst of a divorce action in Florida in which the validity of the prenuptial agreement has been brought into question. He entered a tolling agreement with Wolf Block to toll the statute of limitations while his attorneys, as well as lawyers for Wolf Block, attempted to enforce the prenuptial agreement in the divorce action. When the Florida judge denied summary judgment on the issue and ruled discovery of assets should continue, Potamkin filed the complaint in the malpractice case in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

Wolf Block, through its attorney, Nicholas M. Centrella of Conrad O'Brien, requested the Philadelphia court issue a stay in the malpractice action until the divorce is finalized. In denying summary judgment, the Florida court ruled the prenuptial agreement does not conclusively establish that either party waived equitable distribution of the assets. Wolf Block now counters that the Florida ruling was simply an interlocutory ruling that denied summary judgment and did not determine the legal effect of the prenuptial agreement.

Until the Florida court enters judgment assessing damages, if any, against the plaintiff in the divorce action on the basis of its interpretation of the prenuptial agreement and post-trial remedies are pursued to completion, the scope of the plaintiff's claims and the alleged damages he purportedly suffered will not be known.

Wolf Block's Motion

Wolf Block said in its motion to stay and supporting brief that it understood Potamkin had to file the suit before the completion of the divorce action because of statute of limitations concerns. But it said the state Supreme Court's 1993 opinion in Bailey v. Tucker , 621 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1993), allows for the defense to file preliminary objections and seek a stay, at which point the trial court shall then reserve its ruling until resolution of the underlying action.

Background

Potamkin and his family had hired Wolf Block for business, financial and personal matters starting in the early 1970s. Potamkin hired the firm in 1983 to write up a prenuptial agreement in advance of his Oct. 1, 1983, marriage to Claudia Forman. David R. Glyn, then a Wolf Block partner under the supervision of then-partner David J. Kaufman, was assigned to draft the agreement under Florida law, according to the complaint.

The additional 54 named defendants were all general partners of the firm in 1983. Glyn, Kaufman and the other defendants are being sued individually and as trading as Wolf Block. The firm is listed as a defendant as well. According to the complaint, the agreement was supposed to establish a formula for what Potamkin would have to pay Forman if they divorced or separated. The attorneys, Potamkin said in the complaint, were supposed to make the prenuptial agreement iron clad so that no judge could later interpret it to impose greater or lesser financial obligations on Alan Potamkin in the event of a divorce.

But in January 2007, a month after Potamkin and Forman decided to divorce, Forman informed Potamkin that her lawyers did not think the prenuptial agreement limited his financial obligations as envisioned by the agreement, according to the complaint.

Potamkin's complaint argues that the prenuptial agreement failed to take into account any potential future changes in Florida law or necessary waivers that should have been included. The agreement was drafted before Florida adopted an equitable distribution law. In filing for divorce in Miami-Dade County in October 2007, Forman demanded an equitable distribution of the assets, according to the complaint.

FL Court's Initial Decision

The Florida court's initial decision on summary judgment came down on Sept. 11, 2009. The judge denied a request for reconsideration on June 28, 2010. Potamkin's attorney, Joseph R. Podraza Jr. of Sprague & Sprague, said that statute of limitations concerns forced them to file the writ in the malpractice case in March 2010. The complaint was then filed in early July.

Unless it is settled, the divorce litigation is currently scheduled for trial. Potamkin's damages in the malpractice case cannot be determined until the distribution of assets is decided.

Gina Passarella is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article originally appeared.