What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
Communicating with Sugarman Rogers through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of our attorneys. Our decision as to whether and on what terms we may agree to represent a client involves consideration of a variety of factors, discussion with the prospective client, and, where appropriate, a written engagement agreement.
Please do not use this form of communication to transmit any private, personally identifying, or other confidential information. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of this means of communication.
June 10, 2014
A Delaware superior court has granted summary judgment for a lawyers’ professional liability insurer represented by Sugarman Rogers’s William Boesch, in a dispute with an insured law firm over a claim seeking return of some $215 million in fees awarded in a securities class action.
The law firm was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Tyco companies securities class action. The matter was settled in July 2007, and a New Hampshire federal judge approved the settlement, including over $460 million in contingent fees sought by the lead-counsel firms. In 2010, a member of the plaintiff class, Richard Gielata, sued the law firm, charging that the size of its fee violated a 2004 agreement in which the firm had agreed to cap the amount of its fees, and to oppose larger fees if sought by co-lead counsel. Gielata sought to have the firm return some $215 million in allegedly overcharged fees, plus punitive damages, interest and costs.
The law firm sought a defense and indemnity from its malpractice insurer. The insurer, represented by Sugarman Rogers’s William Boesch, brought a declaratory-judgment suit seeking a determination that the Gielata action was not covered, based on a policy provision excluding disputes over attorneys’ fees or costs. The law firm countered that the exclusion did not apply – at least with respect to the insurer’s duty to defend – because Gielata’s claims were much broader than in the ordinary fee dispute. In a decision issued June 9, 2014, the Delaware superior court agreed with Sugarman Rogers’s arguments for the insurer, and granted it summary judgment.
For a copy of the decision or more information, please contact William Boesch.
|
|
Summary judgment win for malpractice insurer in $215 million fee case |
Date: June 10, 2014 |
Press Release |
William L. Boesch |
Related Services: Insurance & Reinsurance |
||
|
A Delaware superior court has granted summary judgment for a lawyers’ professional liability insurer represented by Sugarman Rogers’s William Boesch, in a dispute with an insured law firm over a claim seeking return of some $215 million in fees awarded in a securities class action. The law firm was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Tyco companies securities class action. The matter was settled in July 2007, and a New Hampshire federal judge approved the settlement, including over $460 million in contingent fees sought by the lead-counsel firms. In 2010, a member of the plaintiff class, Richard Gielata, sued the law firm, charging that the size of its fee violated a 2004 agreement in which the firm had agreed to cap the amount of its fees, and to oppose larger fees if sought by co-lead counsel. Gielata sought to have the firm return some $215 million in allegedly overcharged fees, plus punitive damages, interest and costs. The law firm sought a defense and indemnity from its malpractice insurer. The insurer, represented by Sugarman Rogers’s William Boesch, brought a declaratory-judgment suit seeking a determination that the Gielata action was not covered, based on a policy provision excluding disputes over attorneys’ fees or costs. The law firm countered that the exclusion did not apply – at least with respect to the insurer’s duty to defend – because Gielata’s claims were much broader than in the ordinary fee dispute. In a decision issued June 9, 2014, the Delaware superior court agreed with Sugarman Rogers’s arguments for the insurer, and granted it summary judgment. For a copy of the decision or more information, please contact William Boesch. |
Related People |
|||
William L. BoeschPartner617.227.3030boesch@sugarmanrogers.com |
|||