Richard Fisher (“Fisher”) was the Chief Legal Officer for UFT Commercial Finance, LLC (“UFT”). UFT’s CEO was Joanne Marlowe (“Marlowe”) (together with UFT, “the Plaintiffs”). As CLO, Fisher allegedly advised the Plaintiffs they did not need directors and officers insurance (“D&O Insurance”) and that such insurance would not protect Marlowe from personal liability should the company lose a wage claim or something similar. Fisher also drafted employment agreements for UFT, some of which included supplements with accrual and deferment provisions. He also drafted and executed his own agreement. During Fisher’s third year as CLO, Marlowe told Fisher his employment would not be extended and Fisher resigned. Fisher then initiated arbitration proceedings against UFT and Marlowe for wages owed. The arbitrator found the Plaintiffs jointly and severally liable to Fisher, with UFT individually liable for an additional sum. In response, the Plaintiffs sued Fisher for professional negligence in that he, among other things, failed to fully and properly advise them of the legal consequences of the employment agreements and arbitration clauses, failed to advise them of the conflict of interest he had in executing his own agreement, and wrongly discouraged their purchase of D&O insurance. Fisher moved for dismissal and sanctions.
Fisher first argued that the earlier arbitration award barred the Plaintiffs’ action under res judicata. The Court disagreed, explaining that the arbitration concerned whether Fisher was entitled to wages while the instant case concerned whether Fisher was negligent in giving, or failing to give, legal advice. The court also did not agree that the majority of the Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice since the Plaintiffs “could not have reasonably known that they were injured until they lost the arbitration.” Id. at 5. Nevertheless, allegations of negligence related to Fisher’s employment agreement were still barred by the six-year statute of repose for legal malpractice because UFT and Marlowe filed suit more than six years after it was executed. The Court also held that Fisher did not owe a duty to Marlowe since “[a]n attorney for an organization owes a duty to the organization, and not its individual shareholders, officers, or directors” unless that individual is an intended third-party beneficiary. Id. at 6. Moreover, the Court agreed that the Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate causation as to their use of supplemental employment agreements, not acquiring D&O Insurance, and not retaining independent counsel. Regarding employment agreements, the Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to allege damages from the agreements with employees other than Fisher himself. However, the Court denied Fisher’s motion for sanctions. It explained that it did “not believe that the claims brought by Plaintiffs are wholly baseless or frivolous” or that “this suit was brought for the sole purpose of harassing and embarrassing Fisher.” Id. at 8.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)