Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer -- a prominent personal injury firm -- was sued by a former client for messing up a case.
Apparently, Bernard Rudolf was hit by an automobile while crossing a Merrick, Long Island intersection. A personal-injury lawsuit was later filed, and once the trial was concluded, Rudolf's counsel asked the judge to instruct the jury on a section of the law that was not really appropriate for the case. The jury returned a verdict finding Rudolf and the driver who injured him equally negligent (apportioning 50% fault to each) and awarded Rudolf about $127,500.
Not satisfied with that result, Rudolf hired new counsel who moved for a retrial. Rudolf's attorneys argued that the wrong section of the law had been applied thus prejudicing the case's outcome. The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed and a new trial was ordered. This time, the jury found the driver exclusively responsible for the incident and the case settled for $750,000.
Despite this substantial recovery, Rudolph later sued Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer (his original attorneys) for malpractice alleging that as a result of that firm's error he had been forced to pay legal fees and other expenses, and, had lost some $190,000 in interest on the monies that he would have originally recovered (had the $750K been paid to him in the first instance).
The Nassau County Supreme Court responded with an award of $28,703.27 -- which solely represented the professional fees. On appeal, the AD2 reversed because in light of the $750K recovery, Rudolf had not suffered any "damages."
The New York State Court of Appeals did not concur with AD2 and determined that Rudolf had not been made "whole" by the $750K he received, since $28,703.27 had been incurred to "correct" his original counsel's error. As for the lost interest, that theory was correctly rejected by our state's highest court as "pure speculation."
But here is a quote from the decision that caught our eye:
There is no basis to presume that a difference in the instructions on determining liability would have altered the jury's calculation of damages.
If that's so, then why find the original lawyers liable for $28K in fees and expenses?
Rudolf got a second bite at the apple and luckily succeeded. (You'd think he'd count his blessings and leave well enough alone.) But what if he had achieved the same (or a worst) result? Would that have resulted in a draw?
It seems that the court compelled the original attorneys to shoulder Rudolf's costs of securing a new trial largely because they had conceded committing the error. But that should not have been an operative factor nor made a difference.
The way we calculate it, Rudolf did some $622,500 better after the second trial. That's not "damage," that's more like a windfall to us.
Talk about having your cake ....
For a copy of the the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer (AD2)
For a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision, please use this link: Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer (C/A)