A criminal defendant-turned-lawyer won a $280,000 verdict in Manhattan earlier this month against his former attorney who allegedly labeled him an emotionally unstable "a-hole" and a "dangerous jerk" who mistreated women.

After a 10-day trial, a state court jury found New York solo practitioner Robert Feldman had breached a contract with his former client, Donald Glassman, committed legal malpractice and defamed him, among other findings.

On several counts, however, the jury awarded no damages, which both sides said would be the subject of post-trial motions. The jury awarded Glassman $10,000 for breach of contract, $20,000 for malpractice and $250,000 in punitive damages. The trial was before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Louis Nock.

Glassman had been litigating against Feldman for nearly a decade over the claims, stemming from a roughly six-month period after Glassman was convicted of the third-degree rape of his then-wife. Glassman, who won a new trial and was acquitted, became a lawyer after the criminal charges were resolved.

Jon Norinsberg, a civil rights lawyer who represented Glassman, said the jury's verdict in his client's case against Feldman was inconsistent. He said the jury's reasoning may have been tainted by the court's decision to let Feldman argue that any harm to Glassman flowed from the dismissal of his wrongful arrest suit against New York City, rather than from any of Feldman's conduct. Nonetheless, Norinsberg, who runs his own firm, said he was pleased with the verdict.

"Awarding a quarter of a million in punitive damages sends a loud and clear message to any other lawyer that would consider making a defamatory post … about a former client," he said. "We think it's an outstanding victory. This was a tremendous accomplishment in court, to be able to prove all these claims. This was an exceptionally difficult trial."

Feldman, for his part, said that between the jury's award of zero damages for defamation and another part of the verdict that cut in his favor, the jury's decision to award punitive damages is "not sustainable as a matter of law."

He said the jury's verdict clearly endorsed his position that the decision in the wrongful-arrest civil case, which is posted online and includes "gory details" of the prosecution's case against Glassman, is more harmful to Glassman than anything Feldman might have posted online.

"We are confident that Justice Louis L. Nock will set aside the verdict," Feldman said in a text message. He added, "there was no 'but for' to sustain the legal malpractice verdict. 'But for' our counsel, plaintiff would have served a jail term and would have been barred from licensure as a lawyer."

Malpractice and Defamation

Glassman's litigation against Feldman goes back to 2006, when he was charged with raping and assaulting his wife. Glassman was convicted by a jury in October 2007 but argued after the trial that his lawyer Howard Blau wrongfully refused to let him testify. Ultimately, he won a new trial, where he was represented by a public defender and where he testified, and he was acquitted in 2009, according to the website of the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan.

Before he was acquitted, Glassman fired Blau and engaged Feldman, a family friend, to file a so-called 330 motion to set aside the verdict and to mount an appeal, Norinsberg said.

But Feldman should not have taken on the representation because he would be a material witness, having taken a panicked call from Glassman shortly after Blau closed the first trial without giving him the chance to testify, Norinsberg said, explaining his client's malpractice claim. Glassman had to hire other lawyers to argue the 330 motion. Glassman sued Feldman after he refused to return part of a $30,000 retainer that was also supposed to cover an appeal, Norinsberg said.

In an interview, Feldman, who said he did nothing wrong, disputed the notion that there was a conflict. He said he conducted an investigation and pursued a strategy on the 330 motion that would have used testimony from others who had spoken with Glassman about Blau's errors. He also said the retainer agreement made clear that the $30,000 wasn't meant to cover the 330 motion and an appeal.

The scope of Glassman's claims against Feldman expanded after Feldman responded to a post on the website RipoffReport.com in 2011, referring to Glassman as "emotionally disturbed," "a tragedy" and "a total a-hole," among other things. Feldman's post claimed that Glassman had engaged in violence or inappropriate behavior toward women. Glassman then filed a new suit accusing Feldman of defamation, and the two cases were consolidated, Norinsberg said.

Despite an order from Justice Cynthia Kern in 2012 requiring Feldman to take the post down, it remains online. Feldman told Law.com on Monday that RipoffReport.com has refused to take the post down, even though he made several efforts to have it removed.

Part of the reason Glassman's suit against Feldman, which was first filed in 2009, took so long to get to trial was because Feldman filed for bankruptcy in the midst of the dispute, which put a hold on litigation against him, Glassman has claimed in court papers. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Carla Craig dismissed Feldman's bankruptcy case in February, saying that it was filed in bad faith.

Glassman eventually went to law school and was admitted to the New York bar in 2015, according to the New York court system's online directory of lawyers. The directory indicates that he works for a landlords' trade association.

Glassman also sued Blau and won a nearly $500,000 judgment in 2010. But Blau pleaded guilty to stealing from clients in 2012, and Norinsberg said not a cent of that judgment had been paid.