Bosworth Claims It Was Kline & Specter, Not Him, That Breached Settlement Terms
“K&S is the only party who has breached the settlement agreement,” Thomas Bosworth alleged. He asked the court to award him attorney fees relating to the firm’s motion, which he claimed “was brought in bad faith and with an intent to injure Bosworth financially.”
November 14, 2024 at 04:09 PM
4 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Ex-Kline & Specter associate Thomas Bosworth denied claims that he breached his settlement contract with his former firm.
- Bosworth alleged that it was actually Kline & Specter who had violated the settlement by making allegedly disparaging statements about Bosworth.
- Bosworth claimed Kline & Specter had mischaracterized his conduct when it accused him of failing to comply with the terms of their settlement.
Ex-Kline & Specter associate Thomas Bosworth denied that he breached the settlement resolving his contentious dispute with his former firm.
Instead, he alleged in court filings that it was Kline & Specter that failed to comply with their agreement.
Responding to Kline & Specter’s recent motion accusing him of a host of settlement violations, Bosworth on Tuesday asserted in court documents that the firm made baseless claims against him in an effort to hurt him financially.
Kline & Specter had filed the motion in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 5 seeking to enforce a settlement it reached with Bosworth in August. Kline & Specter asserted Bosworth owed the firm more than $500,000 for his alleged breaches.
The accord had been intended to resolve what had been a sprawling legal fight stemming from Bosworth’s split from the firm in 2022.
Among the purported settlement breaches asserted by the firm were allegations that Bosworth failed to immediately withdraw claims he made against the firm for nearly $100,000 in attorney fees; failed to fully reimburse Kline & Specter for more than $719,000 in costs on departing client files; failed to escrow $1 million to guarantee his compliance with the settlement; and blocked an audit into his adherence to his employment agreement with the firm.
But Bosworth argued in his Tuesday response that Kline & Specter’s motion mischaracterized his conduct.
For instance, he argued in the response that nothing in the settlement agreement prohibited him from collecting the $99,566 in attorney fees that a California judge had awarded against the firm in one of the multiple lawsuits in the dispute.
While Kline & Specter had argued that Bosworth’s pursuit of the attorney fees went against his agreement to dismiss all of his claims against the firm, Bosworth asserted in court filings that his request was not a “claim” and that the California court had already determined the settlement did not bar the award.
In response to the allegations that he had not repaid the firm for certain client files, Bosworth claimed in court that his payments on those cases were not due yet. He contended that, under the terms of the settlement, he did not have to make the payments until the escrow funds in those matters were released. He similarly alleged in court documents that his obligation to create a $1 million escrow account had not yet come due.
Bosworth also denied that he had refused to participate in an audit of his firm, claiming the parties had been in the process of negotiating the audit’s confidentiality terms when Kline & Specter filed its motion.
Bosworth went on to argue in the filing that Kline & Specter had breached the settlement’s non-disparagement clause by filing what he contended were false statements against him. He also asserted in court documents that the firm was in breach of its obligation to "immediately" dismiss all of its claims against Bosworth.
“K&S is the only party who has breached the settlement agreement,” Bosworth alleged. He asked the court to award him attorney fees relating to the firm’s motion, which he claimed “was brought in bad faith and with an intent to injure Bosworth financially.”
In addition to filing a response to Kline & Specter’s motion, Bosworth hit the firm with a motion of his own, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the reputational harm he claimed to have sustained as a result of the allegedly misleading statements from the firm.
Kline & Specter's attorney, Lamb McErlane partner Joseph Podraza Jr., did not return a request for comment, and Bosworth’s attorney, Michael van der Veen of van der Veen, Hartshorn, Levin & Lindheim, declined to comment.
The accusations of settlement violations mark a resurgence in the Bosworth and Kline & Specter's nearly two-year-old legal fight, which had remained quiet in the months following the parties' accord. And both parties claim the other side is to blame for preventing the dispute from being resolved for good.
In its Nov. 5 motion, Kline & Specter said the settlement was “supposed to secure peace for the firm from Bosworth," but alleged that Bosworth nonetheless “continued his campaign against the firm and its founders.”
Bosworth, meanwhile, alleged in his Tuesday response that Kline & Specter possessed an "ongoing fixation" with him. “K&S has shown little interest in resolving this matter amicably," he claimed in the filing. "Instead," he continued, "they have acted as aggressors from the start.”
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.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View AllPa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
3 minute readCourt Sanctions Attorney $7.5K for Filing Repeated Erroneous Complaints
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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