Kubicki Draper Faces Malpractice Claim for Partner's Alleged Work for Client-Turned-Lover
A complaint in Palm Beach Circuit Court accuses Fort Lauderdale litigator Jane Rankin of conflicting interests—representing Love's Bridge View LLC but prioritizing her relationship with its ousted executive, multimillionaire Burton Handelsman.
September 12, 2019 at 03:34 PM
5 minute read
Fort Lauderdale-based law firm Kubicki Draper and partner Jane Rankin are defendants in a legal malpractice suit claiming the lawyer helped an alleged client-turned-lover draft a lease agreement for a property he no longer controlled.
The firm and attorney are defendants in the Palm Beach Circuit Court suit by Love's Bridge View LLC, a real estate company that news reports say is part of a family-owned $550 million real estate empire. Rankin and the firm are accused of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
The complaint alleges Rankin was counsel for Love's Bridge View but that she acted against its interests when she allegedly drafted a lease agreement at the request of an ousted executive, with whom she allegedly had a romantic relationship.
Now, counsel for Love's Bridge View say the suit is the first of many as related companies are gearing to bring similar claims against the South Florida firm and attorney.
Neither Rankin nor Kubicki Draper responded to press inquiries.
Richard Burton Bush, a partner with Bush & Augspurger in Tallahassee, represented Rankin when she testified in divorce proceedings for the ousted real estate executive. He declined comment for her and the firm.
"Neither Mrs. Rankin nor Kubicki Draper comment on pending litigation," Bush said.
Judge alludes to Rankin's 'Faulty Memory'
The allegations stem from Rankin's and Kubicki Draper's work for South Florida real estate magnate Burton Handelsman and his companies. They stretch back to March 2016, when Handelsman was in divorce proceedings with his wife of nearly seven decades, Lucille "Lovey."
As recounted in the complaint, Lucille Handelsman claimed during the divorce proceedings that her husband had been having an affair with Rankin, who had served as his attorney since 2005.
Another unpleasant development for the attorney: The judge found Rankin and Burton Handelsman had lied to the court when the attorney served as a key witness for her client during the divorce case.
"The fact that Burt now admits that Rankin's portion of their coordinated story was materially inaccurate (after being confronted by irrefutable evidence) merely reinforces the court's conclusion that the entire tale was an intentional fraud on the court," Palm Beach Circuit Judge Scott Suskauer ruled in a November 2017 order.
Suskauer ruled the mogul and Rankin had a submitted a fraudulent operating agreement into evidence to bolster their claim that Handelsman legally retained control of the companies.
"This is not a situation where Burt was deprived of the opportunity to offer evidence in defense of the claim that he is engaged in sham litigation," Suskauer found. "The fact that Burt now concedes that the 'story' about the 2002 operating agreement was false does not mean that he can make the problem go away by requesting a new hearing where, apparently, he and/or Rankin intend to change their story into one of 'faulty memory.'"
The judge then sanctioned Handelsman by awarding the mogul's children and ex-wife attorney fees because of "the sham litigation." In his final judgment in April 2019, Suskauer again pointed to Handelsman's "malfeasance."
Handelsman challenged Suskauer's ruling with a pending appeal before Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Long history
The legal malpractice suit claims Rankin refers to herself as Burton Handelsman's "consigliere" after serving as his lawyer and business adviser for nearly 18 years. It claims Rankin spent nearly two decades as "the primary lawyer for the Handelsman empire" and provided legal services to the couple, their adult children and the family's real estate companies.
But it alleges the attorney changed direction along the way.
"She secretly became the executor of Burt's estate, the trustee of his numerous trusts, and—pursuant to a power of attorney—the person in charge of his health and financial decisions in the event of his death or disability," the complaint claimed, alleging Rankin and the firm "picked sides" in the Handelsman divorce.
After the divorce Handelsman's family removed him as acting manager of multiple companies, including Love's Bridge View. It replaced him with his daughter, prompting Handelsman to sue his children and seek an injunction in Palm Beach Circuit Court to prevent ouster.
The suit claims Handelsman and Rankin also made a clandestine move. It alleges that even though Handelsman no longer had control over the companies or their assets, he had Kubicki Draper file a 99-year lease for a West Palm Beach property the businesses owned.
The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duty because it claimed the law firm also represented the companies.
"You're never supposed to worry your lawyer is going to turn against you," Bridge View's attorney and Fisher Potter Hodas partner Jeff Fisher said. "The loyalty of a lawyer to a client is supposed to be sacrosanct."
The complaint further points to multiple omissions and inconsistencies in the allegedly unauthorized lease.
A "purported 99-year lease for Bridge View is not a document that a reasonable lawyer would prepare," the suit alleged. "All of this was part of a plan by Burt, aided and furthered by Rankin and Kubicki Draper, to manipulate the title and value of the multimillion-dollar Bridge View property as part of the divorce action."
|Read the complaint:
Related stories:
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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