Kasowitz Benson Fights Ruling in Client's Billing Fraud Case
Kasowitz Benson Torres, the New York firm whose work for President Donald Trump has kept it in the national spotlight this year, is vowing to appeal…
September 27, 2017 at 05:28 PM
5 minute read
Kasowitz Benson Torres, the New York firm whose work for President Donald Trump has kept it in the national spotlight this year, is vowing to appeal after a Florida judge ruled that a billing fraud complaint against the firm can move forward.
Patriot National, an insurance servicing company, sued Kasowitz in late June in Florida state court, alleging the firm engaged in fraudulent billing, malpractice and other misconduct that cost the company millions of dollars of damages. For instance, Patriot said one firm biller recorded 24 hours of work for the client in a single day.
Kasowitz moved to dismiss last month, arguing New York is a more appropriate venue, as the firm had already sued Patriot for unpaid legal fees there, while Patriot's “threadbare allegations” in its complaint were insufficient.
But Broward County Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez rejected Kasowitz's arguments in late August, while asking Patriot to submit more detail from its billing statements to support its billing fraud claim.
“I don't express any opinion whatsoever on the merits or the nonmerits or the ultimate resolution,” the judge said, “but I think the issue is teed up for further discussion, further resolution, further litigation.”
Kasowitz filed a notice of appeal last week. Kasowitz partner Kelly Luther, who is defending the firm in the malpractice suit, said in court last month that the firm would also seek to stay the case.
In a statement, a Kasowitz spokeswoman said the firm respectfully disagrees with the trial court's decision. “We are appealing that decision and are confident we will prevail on that appeal and in any event ultimately on the merits of Patriot National's purported claims, which are negated by documentary evidence,” the statement said.
Patriot's lawyer in the malpractice action, William Scherer of Florida's Conrad & Scherer, said in an interview that lawyers who replaced Kasowitz in multiple lawsuits to defend Patriot could be potential witnesses if the case goes to trial, but cautioned that privilege issues may complicate matters.
Among others, Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Greenberg Traurig took over representation of Patriot after Kasowitz left, Scherer said.
'Clean Up the Mess'
Patriot, which provides back-office functions to insurance companies, had hired Kasowitz, with partner Kenneth David as the lead attorney, for representation in three Manhattan federal court suits against the Florida-based company over the sale of securities.
Kasowitz also represented certain defendant directors in a shareholder action in Delaware state court.
But Kasowitz pulled out of the cases in early 2017 and filed a collection lawsuit against Patriot in late May in Manhattan Supreme Court, seeking $1.097 million in legal fees.
During a court argument last month in Patriot's malpractice case, Scherer told the judge that Cahill partner Brad Bondi (brother to Florida attorney general Pamela Bondi) “tried to help clean up the mess that was created here” when Kasowitz left the litigation and if the client felt it was necessary to call him or other attorneys as witnesses, “we would do that.”
The discussion of potential witnesses arose over which forum, New York or Florida, is best to hold the case. The judge denied without prejudice Kasowitz's motion to dismiss the case based on inappropriate forum. “If this develops into a nightmare down the road because witnesses aren't showing up or you can't get ahold of them, or there's some undue burden that's placed on you, please bring that to my attention,” Rodriguez told the parties.
In all, Patriot is bringing four claims against Kasowitz, including billing fraud, malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
Patriot argues it was breach of contract and malpractice when Kasowitz failed to ensure it could be approved counsel under the company's insurance coverage.
Luther told the judge last month “there's nothing in the contract” that required the firm to become approved counsel.
But the judge noted that Patriot is arguing that “competent representation would require you to do that. And I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting issue.”
Trump Work 'Irrelevant'
Patriot's complaint also cited Kasowitz's separate representation of Trump in arguing it didn't receive legal services commensurate with a law firm representing the president.
But the judge, on Kasowitz's request, struck the mention of Trump from the complaint. “I don't want to make a finding that representing President Donald Trump is scandalous. I will say it's irrelevant,” he said.
This is just one of many cases keeping Patriot's lawyers busy. Patriot and its executives are currently facing multiple lawsuits brought by various parties over a private investment in public equity (PIPE) deal that led to the litigation in which Kasowitz was retained.
During the court arguments last month, Scherer, Patriot's attorney, said the PIPE transition “caused the wheels to come off of Patriot.”
“This company, and all of its employees, is on the very verge of insolvency today,” said Scherer, who is also defending a Patriot executive in a lawsuit brought by placement agent JPMorgan.
Scherer, in an interview, said the ruling in the case against Kasowitz was “a resounding victory for us” and the parties will move on to discovery.
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 AllDecision of the Day: Contingency Fee to Counsel Result of Successful Advocacy, Not Windfall
AI: Used To Enhance Video Evidence, Substantiate Hourly Rates for Fee Applications
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bar Groups Say IOLA Settlement Protects Civil Litigants' Fund From Future 'Raids'
- 2'Every MAGA Will Buy It:' Elon Musk Featured in Miami Crypto Lawsuit
- 3Pennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
- 4Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
- 5State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America
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