Lawyers Argue Whether Alston & Bird Verdict Is Worth $700K or $2M
Attorneys for the law firm say the entire damages award and fee award—more than $2 million—must be reduced by 68 percent under the apportionment statute. Plaintiff's lawyers say the only applicable reduction is 8 percent of the fault assigned to their client.
March 01, 2018 at 03:53 PM
4 minute read
In the wake of a three-way apportionment of damages and fees in a malpractice verdict against Alston & Bird, the parties are—as they were at trial—offering widely divergent narratives.
The plaintiffs assert that Alston & Bird should pay more than $2 million according to the Wednesday verdict, while the firm says its portion comes to less than $700,000.
In closing arguments, the plaintiffs counsel had asked for more than $3.5 million in damages, interest and legal fees.
Finding that Alston & Bird had committed professional malpractice and breached its fiduciary duty to former client Hatcher Management Holdings LLC, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $697,614 and interest of $341,831 for a total damage award of $1,039,445.
The jury then found that the plaintiff was “to some degree” responsible for its own damages. In the “assessment of fault” portion, the jury found that a former manager of the family-owned LLC—oldest sibling Maury Hatcher, who was not a party and did not appear at trial—was responsible for 60 percent of the damages, while Alston & Bird bore 32 percent of the blame.
The plaintiff LLC was deemed responsible for 8 percent, and two of Maury's brothers—current co-managers of the company, also nonparties—were cleared of fault.
The jury then ruled that it did not find Alston & Bird's conduct to rise to the level of “willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression or an entire want of care” such that punitive damages were warranted.
But the panel said Alston & Bird had engaged in bad faith and awarded $1,096,561 in attorney fees.
The plaintiff's legal team is Harmon Caldwell Jr., Harry MacDougald, Jeremy Moeser and Christine Dial of Caldwell, Propst & DeLoach.
Alston & Bird is represented by a team of Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield lawyers including Richard Robbins, Jason Alloy and Jeremy Littlefield.
After the verdict was read and the jury dismissed, Caldwell and Moeser told Judge Craig Schwall of Fulton County Superior Court that, under the apportionment law, Alston & Bird is responsible for all but 8 percent of the damage award. That would mean the firm should pay $956,289 in damages plus the entire fee award, for a total of $2,052,850 dollars.
Robbins told Schwall the law only required Alston & Bird to pay 32 percent of the damages; he clarified later that he felt the fee award should be similarly reduced.
Schwall gave both sides until March 15 to brief the issue.
On Thursday, Robbins reiterated his position that both the damages and fees were apportionable, meaning the total amount Alston & Bird owes under the verdict is 32 percent of the total, $683,521
Robbins said he will ask Schwall to take 68 percent “off the top of everything.”
“That's the law,” said Robbins via email. “That's why we were smiling, and they were pleading with [the] judge. No punitives. Disaster for them.”
Caldwell said Thursday, “If I were Richard Robbins, I'd be arguing the same thing.”
In an interview, Caldwell and Moeser said the fees awarded under the bad faith statute are not apportionable.
They also said the Georgia Court of Appeals, ruling in the same case, decreed that, while fault could be apportioned to a nonparty in a one-defendant case, any award can be reduced only by the fault allocated to the plaintiff. (Alston& Bird v. Hatcher Management Holdings LLC, 785 SE 2d 541.)
“Under our reading of the statute, the court can only reduce the damages by the fault apportioned to the plaintiff: 8 percent,” Moeser said.
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
© 2025 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 AllEvidence Explained: Prevailing Attorney Outlines Successful Defense in Inmate Death Case
Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readTrial Court Had No Authority to Reopen Voir Dire After Jury Impaneled in Civil Case, State Appellate Court Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 2'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
- 3Justice Department Sues to Block $14 Billion Juniper Buyout by Hewlett Packard Enterprise
- 4A Texas Lawyer Just Rose to the Trump Administration
- 5Hogan Lovells Hires White & Case Corporate and Finance Team in Italy
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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