Law Firm Seeks $1M in Legal Fees From Hartford. Experts Say It's an Uphill Battle
The Santos & LaLima law firm, which represented former Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez as he fought corruption charges, now seeks payment from the city.
September 24, 2019 at 11:52 AM
3 minute read
The law firm that represented former Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez against corruption charges has filed a lawsuit in Superior Court asking for Hartford pay the firm more than $1 million in legal fees, despite there never being a contract.
Winning such a case is a long uphill battle, at the very least, legal experts told the Connecticut Law Tribune.
"I'm very surprised that such an experienced and well-regarded law firm did not have a written retainer agreement," University of Connecticut School of Law professor Leslie Levin said of Hartford's Santos & LaLima law firm, which Hubert Santos heads. "It's very difficult to recover the amount they are seeking. I can't say whether a court might award them something, but it will be difficult to recover much of what they are seeking."
While the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Hartford Superior Court, does not state how much in legal fee work the law firm did for Perez over a period of eight years, the firm's attorney, Hugh Keefe, told the Connecticut Law Tribune the Santos firm is seeking more than $1 million.
The lawsuit cites breach of oral contract. It stems from an oral agreement Perez entered into with Santos' firm, said Keefe, a partner with New Haven's Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante.
Because Perez was mayor at the time, Keefe said he believes the city is obligated to pay the legal costs. The mayor, Keefe said, is like any other municipal employee who is sued.
"We believe the common law of Connecticut supports the theory that, because he was mayor at the time, he had the apparent authority to bind the city of Hartford to the contract," Keefe said. "Police officers sued in the line of duty are protected in that the municipality must pay their legal fees. It should be the same with the mayor."
Keefe said Santos would not have taken the case if he thought he wouldn't be getting paid in the end.
"Of course, he would not have taken the case if he didn't think Hartford would pay, who would?" Keefe asked.
"It's not unusual for lawyers who have represented uninsured people who work for municipalities to have legal bills paid for by the municipality that they work for," Keefe said.
Keefe also said a memo from an insurance agent representing the city that is also part of the lawsuit is "of substantial importance."
In a July 2009 memorandum, according to the lawsuit, Hartford informed Santos of the city's obligation to pay for Perez's legal fees in connection with the underlying case.
But Levin said there should have been a formal agreement, if only to avoid litigation.
"They should have had an agreement in writing, and it's required by the Rules of Professional Conduct that they obtain one for precisely this reason," Levin said. "If you don't have an agreement in writing there can be disagreements about who was responsible to pay, and the scope of the representation."
Perez was convicted of corruption charges at trial in 2010. He resigned as mayor soon afterward. Eventually, the charges were overturned, although the former mayor pleaded guilty two years ago to first-degree larceny by extortion and taking a bribe. Perez received a suspended prison term.
Howard Rifkin, Hartford's corporation counsel, didn't respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 2$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 3Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 4Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 5Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250