Butler v. Scarlett (In re Butler), 81 F.3d 148 (table), 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 5646 (4th Cir. 1996)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim)
Maxwell v. Ingerman, 107 Md.App. 677, 670 A.2d 959 (1996)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - reported opinion involves issue of appellate procedure [subsequent unreported opinion of Court of Special Appeals affirmed trial court judgment in favor of attorney])
Marsh-McBirney, Inc. v. Isco, Inc., 92 F.3d 1180 (table), 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18883 (4th Cir. 1996)(defense of manufacturer of flow meter in commercial litigation brought by competitor manufacturer over alleged violation of Lanham Act - - the case resulted in a lengthy trial after which judgment was entered in favor of the defendant manufacturer, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment)
Bankert by Bankert v. United States, 937 F.Supp. 1169 (D. Md. 1996)
(representation of plaintiffs in medical malpractice and birth injury case against military health care providers under Federal Tort Claims Act - - opinion of the U.S. District Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs after trial)
Maryland Psychiatric Society v. Wasserman, 102 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 1996)
(representation of the plaintiff, an association of mental health care providers, in litigation over Medicare reimbursement for outpatient mental health services - - opinion reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff association by
the U.S. District Court)
Brown & Sturm v. Field Farms Ltd. Pshp. (In re Field Farms Ltd. Pshp.), 120 F.3d 261 (table), 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21249 (4th Cir. 1997)
(representation of attorneys in legal malpractice case - - opinion affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant attorneys entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Court after trial on all of the debtors’ claims seeking damages and also affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s
ruling that the attorneys were not entitled to recover additional fees on their claim in the bankruptcy proceeding as the amount the attorneys had previously been paid in fees was reasonable under the relevant provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code)
Wilson v. Stanbury, 118 Md.App. 209, 702 A.2d 436 (1997)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - affirming summary judgment in favor of attorney on grounds of judicial estoppel)
Ferguson v. Cramer, 116 Md.App. 99, 695 A.2d 603 (1997),
aff’d, Ferguson v. Cramer, 349 Md. 760, 709 A.2d 1279 (1998)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - both the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals issued reported opinions, and each Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the claims against the attorney defendants
as the beneficiaries of the testamentary estate lacked standing to sue the attorney who represented the personal representative of the estate for legal malpractice)
Adkins v. Scarlett, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3657 (4th Cir. 1998)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the attorney because the plaintiff lacked expert testimony that was necessary in the case on the issue of
causation)
Banks v. Board of Physicians, 116 Md.App. 249, 695 A.2d 1260 (1997),
aff’d. in part, rev’d. in part, Board of Physicians v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 729 A.2d 376 (1999)
(representation of physician in disciplinary proceeding)
Mayo v. Baltimore City Public Schools, 40 F.Supp.2d 331 (D. Md. 1999)
(representation of plaintiff on claim under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
Mayo v. Booker, 56 F.Supp.2d 597 (D. Md. 1999)
(representation of plaintiff on claim under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
Frederick Road Limited Partnership v. Brown & Sturm, 121 Md.App. 384, 710 A.2d 298 (1998), recon. den. (1998), rev’d, Frederick Road Limited Partnership v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 756 A.2d 963 (2000)
(representation of attorneys in legal malpractice case - - the Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the attorneys based on the statute of limitations, but the majority [4 member] opinion of the Court of Appeals held that there
were genuine disputes of fact that made summary judgment as to the statute of limitations improper)
Hill v. Wilson, 134 Md.App. 472, 760 A.2d 294 (2000)
(representation of plaintiff in medical malpractice case - - judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed)
Igwilo v. Property Insurance, 131 Md.App. 629, 750 A.2d 646 (2000)
(representation of plaintiffs in insurance coverage litigation [and related medical malpractice and birth injury case] involving construction of statutes governing Maryland’s Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation as well as construction
of the defendant physician’s malpractice insurance policy)
Atlantic Crane Serv. v. S.G. Marino Crane Serv., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218 (D. Md. 2001)
(representation of crane manufacturer in product liability case)
Brown & Sturm v. Frederick Road Limited Partnership, 137 Md.App. 150, 768 A.2d 62 (2001)
(representation of law firm on fee dispute with former client)
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. ARTRA Group, Inc., 125 F.Supp.2d 739 (D. Md. 2001) (representation of business entity that was a former owner of a site contaminated with hazardous materials in commercial litigation involving claims under multiple theories relating to the costs of cleanup of the site under CERCLA)
Lampros v. Gelb & Gelb, P.C., 153 Md.App. 447, 837 A.2d 229 (2003)
(representation of attorney after judgment had been entered against him by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in dispute with law firm over fee sharing - - the Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment entered against the attorney as venue
was improper in Montgomery County, and the case was subsequently transferred to Anne Arundel County where it was further litigated between the parties)
Logan v. Becker (In re Inner City Mgmt., Inc.), 304 B.R. 250 (Bankr. D. Md. 2003) (representation of attorney and title company in case alleging illegitimate real estate “flipping”)
Schafer v. Young, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 756 (D. MD. 2004)
(representation of attorney in legal malpractice case - - the District Court granted the attorney’s motion for partial summary judgment holding that the plaintiff could not recover for his alleged emotional distress damages arising from the attorney’s
alleged malpractice in representing the plaintiff in a commercial or business transaction under Maryland law)
Hall v. Sullivan, 229 F.R.D. 501 (D. MD. 2005)
(representation of attorneys in legal malpractice case - - discovery opinion involving issues relating to service of subpoena for documents on non-party witness)
Sindler v. Litman, 166 Md.App. 90, 887A.2d. 97 (2005)
(appellate representation of plaintiff in personal injury and wrongful death case arising from automobile accident and subsequent suicide of plaintiff’s deceased)
Hall v. Sullivan, 231 F.R.D. 468 (D. MD. 2005)
(representation of attorneys in legal malpractice case - - discovery opinion denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of law firm’s files relating to representation of clients other than the plaintiff in matters pertaining to franchises)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Worsham. 391 Md. 461, 893 A.2d 1119 (2006)
(representation of attorney in disciplinary case - - the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings that attorney did not violate the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, overruled Bar Counsel’s exceptions to the trial court’s findings
and Bar Counsel’s recommendation, and dismissed the petition for disciplinary action)
Hall v. Sullivan, 465 F.Supp.2d. 475 (D. MD. 2006),
aff’d, Hall v. Sullivan, 272 Fed. Appx. 284, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7480 (4th Cir. 2008)
(representation of attorneys in legal malpractice case - - the District Court opinion granted summary judgment to the attorneys in this complex case involving several claims of malpractice arising from representation on matters relating to plaintiff’s
investment in franchises, and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment)
CapitalSource Fin., LLC v. Delco Oil Co., 625 F.Supp.2d 304 (D. MD. 2007)
(representation of general manager of oil company in business litigation - - the District Court granted the general manager’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and also granted his motion to dismiss certain claims, or parts of
certain claims, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Adams, 404 Md. 1, 944 A.2d 1115 (2008), motion to revoke reinstatement denied, 410 Md. 544, 979 A.2d 698 (2009)(representation of attorney in disciplinary case - - in the first opinion the Court of Appeals held that the moving party lacked standing to move to revoke the attorney’s prior reinstatement to practice law, and in the second opinion the Court of Appeals denied Bar Counsel’s [who did have standing] motion to revoke reinstatement)
Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial, Inc. v. The Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc., et al., 595 F.Supp.2d 110 (D. D.C. 2009) (representation of attorney on breach of fiduciary duty claim - - denial of co-Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) - - summary judgment subsequently entered in favor of attorney, see, below)
CapitalSource Fin., LLC v. Delco Oil Co., 608 F.Supp.2d 655 (D. MD. 2009)
(representation of general manager of oil company in business litigation - - subsequent proceedings after the claims against this firm’s client were dismissed in part for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for lack of personal jurisdiction)
Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial, Inc. v. The Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc., et al., 607 F.Supp.2d 185 (D. D.C. 2009) (representation of attorney on breach of fiduciary duty claim - - denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) - - summary judgment subsequently entered in favor of attorney, see, below)
Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial, Inc. v. The Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc., et al., 691 F.Supp.2d 132, (D. D.C. 2010) (representation of attorney on breach of fiduciary duty claim - - the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney in this complex case, which was one of three related cases, involving multiple claims between several parties; the District Court found as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts that the attorney did not violate Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, or Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, and did not breach a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff)
Norman v. Borison, 192 Md.App. 405, 994 A.2d 1019 (2010), aff’d, 418 Md. 630, 17 A.3d 697 (2011) (representation of attorneys and law firm in defamation case - - the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of claims as the plaintiff lacked standing and as the allegedly defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Maryland’s judicial proceedings privilege)
Brodie v. Worthington, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109119 (D.D.C. 2010) (representation of attorney in civil rights and legal malpractice claim brought by former client who had been convicted in a prior federal criminal proceeding - - the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all claims, and District Judges subsequently dismissed claims and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration)
Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial, Inc. v. Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc., et al., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15659 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the summary judgment granted to the firm’s client as the appeal was premature and the court lacked appellate jurisdiction because a final judgment resolving all claims between all parties had not been entered)
Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian, 746 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2010) (subsequent proceedings after summary judgment was entered in favor of the firm’s client)
Brodie v. Worthington, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109122 (D.D.C. 2010) (representation of attorney in civil rights and legal malpractice claim brought by former client who had been convicted in a prior federal criminal proceeding - - the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all claims, and District Judges subsequently dismissed claims and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration)
Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian, 772 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C. 2011) (subsequent proceedings after summary judgment was entered in favor of the firm’s client)
Norman v. Borison,418 Md. 630, 17 A.3d 697 (2011) (the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, which had affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against the firm’s client, as it found that all of the allegedly defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Maryland’s judicial proceedings privilege)
Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian, 772 F.Supp.2d 129 (D.D.C. 2011) (subsequent proceedings after summary judgment was entered in favor of the firm’s client)
Brodie v. Worthington, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70169 (D.D.C. 2011) (representation of attorney in civil rights and legal malpractice claim brought by former client who had been convicted in a prior federal criminal proceeding - - the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all claims, and District Judges subsequently dismissed claims and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration)
Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian, 783 F.Supp.2d 78 (D.D.C. 2011) (subsequent proceedings after summary judgment was entered in favor of the firm’s client)
Brodie v. Worthington, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107033 (D.D.C. 2011) (representation of attorney in civil rights and legal malpractice claim brought by former client who had been convicted in a prior federal criminal proceeding - - the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all claims, and District Judges subsequently dismissed claims and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration)
Alexis v. Albertini & Darby, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118283 (D.Md. 2011), aff’d 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5699 (4th Cir. 2012) (representation of attorneys and law firm in civil rights case arising from alleged legal malpractice - - the District Judge dismissed plaintiff’s claim with prejudice)
WW,LLC v. The Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123644 (D.Md. 2011) (representation of franchisor and its officers in lawsuit filed against them by former franchisees - - the District Judge granted the defendants’ motions to strike the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and to strike the plaintiffs’ surreply; the District Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and the District Judge denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue or in the alternative to transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses)
Brodie v. Worthington, 841 F.Supp.2d 91 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, Brodie v. Rosen, 2012 U.S.App. LEXIS 9211 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rehearing denied, en banc, Brodie v. Rosen, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11810 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (the District Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his claims and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals granted the defendants’/appellees’ motions for summary affirmance and denied the plaintiff’s/appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc)
Alexis v. Albertini & Darby, 2012 U.S.App. LEXIS 5699 (4th Cir. 2012) (the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of civil rights claim against attorney arising from alleged legal malpractice)