Articles Posted in Business Disputes

|

Donald J. Trump is already facing dozens of criminal charges for allegedly falsifying business records and misusing campaign funds in an alleged attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. Yet Trump is back in court suing his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for $500 million.

The lawsuit accuses Cohen of talking publicly about things that should have remained confidential between him and his former client. The lawsuit also accuses Cohen of telling lies about Mr. Trump in the media and in Cohen’s two books, Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump, and Revenge: How Donald Trump Weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice Against His Critics.

The first book was published prior to the 2020 presidential election, whereas the second was released in 2022. Among other things, the books accuse Trump of being a racist and of lying about just about everything. Continue reading ›

|

We all know attorneys are not allowed to represent both sides in a lawsuit, but what if the law firm currently representing one side used to represent the other side? Wouldn’t that be considered a conflict of interest? It’s especially likely to pose a problem if the issue involved in the lawsuit is the same issue the law firm previously handled for the other side.

If the law firm had recently represented the company they’re currently suing, it’s obvious how that could cause problems. But what if the prior legal work in question was performed more than a decade ago? Would that be long enough to erase the conflict of interest?

All that is in question as Walgreens seeks to disqualify a law firm currently filing a lawsuit against it on behalf of major health insurance providers.

Walgreens claims the law firm, Crowell & Moring, has breached its fiduciary duty to the giant retail company by representing major health insurers suing Walgreens over drug prices. The law firm sought to have the claims dismissed, but U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall said Walgreens had provided enough evidence to keep their claim alive, at least for now. Continue reading ›

|

A Call from a Friend Led Him to a Multi-Million-Dollar Case

A lot of people tend to assume lawyers have enormous salaries, but a lot of lawyers, especially those working at small firms, make only a modest income. So, the millions of dollars that might be on their way to attorney David Wasinger as part of a settlement agreement he negotiated and a case he won is anything but business as usual for him.

Wasinger is the only partner of a small law firm in St. Louis, Missouri. He works with just four other lawyers and his firm handles mostly business disputes. He had never represented a whistleblower until he got a call from an old business acquaintance in early 2012.

A whistleblower is someone who works in an organization that is allegedly committing fraud against the government, and they decide to alert the authorities. Because whistleblowers are risking their jobs and their reputation, they usually receive 15-25% of the settlement or court-ordered award that comes out of the lawsuit as an incentive to alert the government to fraud.

A share of that money goes to the lawyers representing the whistleblower, which is why whistleblower cases are highly competitive. Wasinger’s position is unique in that he didn’t compete to represent this client – the client reached out to him because they already had a relationship. When you’re blowing the whistle on fraud worth billions of dollars, you need someone you can trust.

The first lawsuit Wasinger brought to court accused Bank of America’s Countrywide unit of engaging in widespread fraud. In January of 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan announced it would be asking for as much as $2.1 billion in penalties from the bank after a jury found it to be guilty of fraud. Continue reading ›

|

When someone files a lawsuit alleging physical or emotional abuse, they can often find the legal process to be retraumatizing. They are forced to relive the incident(s) that hurt them over and over again, first when hiring a lawyer, then in deposition, then again in court. It’s not an easy process, and it’s a big reason that many victims never pursue legal action. It’s also a big reason many of those who do file never pursue it all the way to court.

Moss Gropen is one such victim who alleges he was abused and neglected by Palomar Medical Center. According to the lawsuit, Gropen went to the hospital for a scheduled procedure to remove fluid from the area surrounding his lungs. Instead, he claims he was admitted to the emergency room where doctors inserted a chest tube, then put him in a windowless room and left him alone with substandard nutrition. Gropen alleges he suffered from uncontrollable sobbing and anxiety, which resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from which he says he continues to suffer.

Gropen is suing the hospital along with several of its doctors and employees for causing his PTSD. When he appeared at the offices of the hospital’s lawyers in July to provide his deposition, his wife came with him to provide emotional support during what was bound to be a challenging time for Gropen.

The lawyers immediately objected to the presence of Gropen’s wife at the deposition because she is a witness in the lawsuit. Having Gropen’s wife present while he provides his deposition could lead to the two of them colluding on their testimony. Gropen refused to provide testimony without his wife present and ended up leaving the office without providing testimony. Continue reading ›

|

In the case of Pickering v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 265 Ill. App. 3d 806, the plaintiff sought punitive damages against the defendant for the defendant’s failure to warn consumers of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. Punitive damages are damages awarded in addition to compensatory damages and are intended to punish the defendant for their wrongful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.

In this case, the plaintiff sought to discover the net worth of the defendant as part of their efforts to establish punitive damages. The defendant objected to the request for net worth discovery, arguing that it was irrelevant to the issue of punitive damages and that it was overly burdensome and intrusive.

The court held that net worth discovery was relevant to the issue of punitive damages and that the defendant had a duty to disclose its net worth. The court noted that punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and that the amount of punitive damages awarded should be proportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay. The court also noted that net worth discovery is a common practice in cases involving punitive damages. Continue reading ›

|

“The focus of the crime fraud exception is on the intent of the client (citation omitted), not the legitimacy of the services provided by the attorney. An attorney may be completely innocent of wrongdoing, yet the privilege will give way if the client sought the attorney’s assistance for illegal ends.” People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 49.

A lawyer’s participation in intentional breaches of fiduciary duty triggers the crime-fraud exception even though a fiduciary breach is no necessarily a crime or act of common law fraud. Intentional fiduciary breaches are regularly called constructive fraud however and give rise to the crime fraud exception. See Mueller Indus., Inc. v. Berkman, 399 Ill.App.3d 456, 469-73 (2d Dist. 2010) abrogated by People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197 on other grounds (“In concluding that an intentional breach of fiduciary duty may serve as the fraud necessary to establish the crime-fraud exception, we take note of Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky.1991). … The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the breach of fiduciary duty was ‘on an equal par with fraud and deceit.”’) Lawyers who aid and abet fiduciary breaches and other torts are subject to suit. As Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15, 28–29 (1st Dist. 2003), as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 10, 2003) recognized, a lawyer may not “escap[e] liability for knowingly and substantially assisting a client in the commission of a tort.” Continue reading ›

|

Yes, it is possible to sue a lawyer in a shareholder derivative action in certain jurisdictions including Illinois. A shareholder derivative action is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. The lawsuit is typically brought when the corporation has been harmed by the actions of a third party, but the corporation’s management has failed to take action.

In a shareholder derivative action, the shareholder acts as a representative of the corporation and brings the lawsuit on the corporation’s behalf. If the shareholder is successful in the lawsuit, any damages or remedies awarded go to the corporation, not to the individual shareholder.

In some cases, the corporation’s harm may be caused by the actions of the corporation’s own lawyers. For example, if a lawyer provides negligent or inadequate legal advice to the corporation, causing the corporation to suffer damages, the corporation’s shareholders may be able to bring a shareholder derivative action against the lawyer on behalf of the corporation.

In order to bring a successful shareholder derivative action against a lawyer, the shareholders must be able to show that the lawyer breached their duty of care to the corporation and that this breach caused harm to the corporation. The shareholders must also show that they have exhausted all other available remedies, such as asking the corporation’s management to take action against the lawyer.

In conclusion, it is possible to sue a lawyer in a shareholder derivative action if the lawyer’s actions have harmed the corporation. However, such lawsuits can be complex and challenging, and it is important to seek the advice of a qualified attorney before pursuing this type of legal action. Continue reading ›

|

The family of Marvin Gaye rocked the music world in 2015 when they sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copying elements of Gaye’s hit, “Got to Give It Up,” in their own hit, “Blurred Lines.” Up until the jury sided with Gaye’s family, most musicians had assumed the musical elements in question were public domain.

That lawsuit seems to have opened up the floodgates, given the number of copyright lawsuits that have been filed in the music industry in the past eight years. Not all the lawsuits have ended in the plaintiffs’ favor, but enough have to give musicians pause when writing a new song.

The latest copyright lawsuit to make headlines in the music industry involves another Gaye song, “Let’s Get It On.” Instead of Gaye’s family, this copyright lawsuit has been filed by the family of Ed Townsend, who was the primary songwriter and owned 2/3 of the royalties on the song.

The case hinges on two chord progressions that are similar, but not identical. Even a musical expert testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs admitted the two chords have slight differences, but he maintained that they are interchangeable.

An attorney for the plaintiffs showed the jury a video of Sheeran performing a mashup of the two songs in question. The attorney claimed that Sheeran’s ability to move seamlessly from one song to the other proves that Sheeran stole the chord progression from the 1973 hit. Continue reading ›

|

If a lawsuit is filed and the parties decide to settle before the case gets to court, how can you know what evidence each party found to support their case? You can’t. Chances are good the defendant requested the court to seal the documents, meaning it would not be available to other lawyers, journalists, or the general public.

Over the years, attorneys for corporations have managed to convince the courts their clients need protection from the public, rather than the other way around. The courts’ willingness to go along with this has only endangered consumers who were prevented from being made aware of things like the dangers of opioids, weak car roofs, or guns with faulty triggers.

Over the years, various legislators and judges have acknowledged there are problems with the current system of sealing court documents, but so far they have been either unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes to protect consumers.

When the first rules allowing judges to seal court documents were created, they initially allowed judges to decide which documents to shield by considering them on a case-by-case basis. The rules were later broadened to include anything with the potential to embarrass or annoy a corporation. Continue reading ›

|

Scott Norris Johnson is a quadriplegic who used to work for the IRS and now practices law suing local businesses for failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As the lawyer filing these lawsuits, Johnson is entitled to at least a portion of the settlement money he receives from these lawsuits, but he is required to report that money on his income taxes. According to a recent lawsuit, Johnson knowingly failed to report that income on his taxes, thereby defrauding the U.S. government of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Johnson pleaded guilty to the charge of tax evasion and agreed to pay $250,000 in restitution and spend 18 months of home detention. The judge presiding over the case, John Mendez, insisted that Johnson be made to pay a fine in addition to the $250,000 in restitution and home detention. That was not part of the plea agreement, but Johnson agreed to pay the $50,000 fine Mendez wanted him to pay.

Mendez pointed out that the money is a drop in the bucket for Johnson, who has assets of $1.3 million and a monthly income of $81,000, thanks to all the ADA lawsuits he’s filing. Mendez was also concerned by Johnson’s lack of remorse for his actions, and pointed out that, were it not for his disability, he’d be serving up to three years in prison. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design