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
LitigationWhat 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
© 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.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View AllSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
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