Greenberg Traurig will not be able to avoid trial in an 11-year-old attorney deceit case facing the firm in New York. A judge set a trial date for next April, after denying the firm's bid to have more summary judgment arguments.

Former hedge fund manager James Melcher, now 79, is suing Greenberg Traurig and a former shareholder, Leslie Corwin, claiming attorney deceit under Judiciary Law Section 487. Melcher claims Greenberg and Corwin colluded with their client, an adversary of Melcher, to deceive the court by presenting a “phony” contract amendment in an underlying case and then claiming the document was accidentally burned by the Greenberg client while making tea.

After an Appellate Division, First Department, decision in September affirmed some limits on damages testimony, Greenberg Traurig asked Manhattan Supreme Court Justice O. Peter Sherwood for a second set of summary judgment arguments to “resolve the remaining issues” in the case. Greenberg's defense lawyer, Thomas Rice, said the basis for such a motion is that “no rational jury” could find that Greenberg had “actual knowledge” of the alleged falsity of the document.

In an Oct. 4 letter to the court, Rice, of counsel at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, indicated that alleged damages could be a maximum of $4.9 million, a trebled amount from about $1.65 million, as a result of recent court decisions. Melcher was seeking more than $16 million.

Rice said the First Department decision in September “makes clear that potentially recoverable damages are just a small fraction of the amount plaintiff has sought.” Rice added, “It is clear that the cost and expense to the parties as well as the use of judicial resources in completing pretrial tasks and proceeding to trial would be very substantial in comparison to the amount at issue.”

But Melcher's longtime lawyer, solo practitioner Jeffrey Jannuzzo, argued to go straight to trial. “A jury is entitled to determine the preposterous excuse that the Greenberg lawyers 'knew' nothing,” Jannuzzo said. The plaintiff's lawyer said, by his “own reckoning,” he believed Greenberg had paid its Simpson Thacher defense lawyers more than $9 million during the 11 years of the case. “Greenberg does not fear the expense of a trial. It fears the trial because it fears a jury verdict,” Jannuzzo said in his response letter.

At a court hearing Nov. 20, Sherwood set a trial schedule for April 15 through 29, allowing for a two-week trial. In denying Greenberg's request for summary judgment arguments, Sherwood noted that the case had already taken 11 years and that allowing additional briefings could open the door to more appeals.

In a statement to ALM, Jannuzzo said, “We are very grateful Justice Sherwood was very mindful of the length of the case and the age of the plaintiff, who is now 79.”

A Greenberg spokeswoman said in an email, “As we have said before, this case is without merit as will be shown at trial.”

The parties are anticipated to submit pretrial schedule proposals in early December, and they could face Sherwood again in court on Dec. 11

Meanwhile, Jonathan Youngwood, another Simpson Thacher attorney, entered an appearance in the case last month. Youngwood is the third Simpson Thacher lead partner to represent Greenberg in the matter, after the retirements of Roy Reardon and Thomas Rice during the 11-year-old case.