Willett v. Russell M. Stookey PC

The trial court reversibly erred in allowing the defense to bolster its impeachment of plaintiff by introducing prejudicial and irrelevant details of his prior crimes.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Harold Willett sued Russell M. Stookey, P. C. and Russell M. Stookey for legal malpractice, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional misconduct in connection with Stookey’s representation of Willett in the sale of the stock of Willett Construction Company, Inc. to Ralph Neely. Ronald M. Cohen and his law firm, Hunter, MacLean, Exley, and Dunn, P. C., were also named as defendants in the suit. The trial court granted Stookey’s motion for summary judgment on all counts other than legal malpractice. The legal malpractice claim was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict for Stookey and Cohen. In case number A02A1214, Willett claims the trial court erred in making a number of evidentiary rulings during the trial of his legal malpractice claim. In case number A02A0817, Willett claims the trial court erred in granting Stookey’s motion for summary judgment on Willett’s claims for punitive damages in connection with his legal malpractice claim, and on his claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional misconduct.

Attorneys Stookey and Cohen represented Willett in the sale of the stock of Willett Construction Company to Ralph Neely, a Willett Construction employee. At the time of the sale, Willett had been convicted of child molestation and was in jail. Willett and Neely executed a purchase agreement for the stock of Willett Construction, and Neely gave Willett a promissory note as payment for the stock. Willett Construction guaranteed payment of the note. In a transaction which violated the terms of the purchase agreement, Neely subsequently obtained an $80,150 personal loan secured by real estate owned by Willett Construction. Because of Neely’s default under the purchase agreement, Willett took back his stock; Willett was then forced to satisfy Neely’s personal loan to prevent Neely’s creditor from foreclosing on the Willett Construction property.

Willett v. Russell M. Stookey PC

The trial court reversibly erred in allowing the defense to bolster its impeachment of plaintiff by introducing prejudicial and irrelevant details of his prior crimes.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report