Alston & Bird Malpractice Verdict May Exceed $1.4M
Each side's lawyers disagree about how much the award should be reduced under apportionment law.
February 28, 2018 at 06:03 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Alston & Bird may be on the hook for as much as $1.4 million between legal fees and damages after a jury came back Wednesday against the firm in an Atlanta malpractice lawsuit.
The Fulton County jury apportioned 32 percent of the blame to the law firm, while laying 60 percent on the former company manager accused of looting the business, and 8 percent to the company itself.
The jury awarded $697,614 in damages and $341,831 in interest, which will be apportioned, and nearly $1.1 million in fees and expenses, which Alston & Bird will have to cover in full.
The verdict left both sides' lawyers arguing over what the apportionment breakdown means. Lead plaintiffs attorney Harmon Caldwell told Superior Court Judge Craig Schwall the awards should only be reduced by the 8 percent blamed on Hatcher Management.
Defense attorney Richard Robbins said the verdict means Alston & Bird is only responsible for 32 percent of the entire award, including the fees and expenses.
Schwall said the plaintiff's version didn't seem to comport with the apportionment law.
“What's the point of the apportionment statute if you can't reduce nonparty fault?” he asked.
“I don't know the answer,” Schwall added, instructing both sides to draft briefs outlying their arguments.
Caldwell said the statute is somewhat confusing but that they believe the proper reduction is 8 percent.
“We were disappointed that the jury did not find the basis for punitive damages, but this was a very well-tried case,” he said.
“This verdict will be on appeal for the next four years,” Robbins 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This content has been archived.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
© 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 AllState High Court Bucks Trend Favoring Insurers, Sides With Restaurants Seeking COVID-19 Coverage
ZipRecruiter Is Trying to Sabotage Indeed's Website, New Lawsuit Claims
3 minute read'Tacit Collusion'?: Verizon Slams Class Action Demanding $268B in Restitution
3 minute read'Johns Hopkins Preyed on Black Women': Ben Crump Reps Henrietta Lacks Estate
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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