Business Law: Malpractice Firm Case

Decent Essays
1) Collect all Crosby cases in which a plaintiff alleges malpractice against a lawyer for failure to draft a shareholder or CCA that protects minority shareholders. As a threshold matter, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions is one year. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.11(A). Generally, an individual shareholder may not bring a legal malpractice action against an attorney that is employed by the corporation itself. See e.g. LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St. 3d 323. When a lawyer counsels a corporation, the lawyer has a relationship directly to the corporation and not to any of the shareholders. Ohio Rules of Prof 'l Conduct R. 1.13(a) (2011). In Ohio, courts adhere to a strict privity rule which states “‘attorneys …show more content…
Maloof failed to establish that Benesch, through its actions, owed a fiduciary duty or obligation to him in addition to the obligation it owed to the corporation, Level Propane.
A complaining shareholder has a direct action only if he is injured in a way that is separate and distinct from an injury to the corporation. Weston v. Weston Paper & Mfg. Co. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 377, 379, 1996 Ohio 148, 658 N.E.2d 1058, citing Crosby v. Beam (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 105, 107, 548 N.E.2d 217.
A corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, even when there is but one shareholder. An attorney 's representation of a corporation does not make that attorney counsel to the corporate officers and directors as individuals. Because the corporation is a separate entity from its directors and officers, causes of action belonging to the corporation may not be litigated by the officers for their own benefit.

LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St. 3d
…show more content…
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 2009-Ohio-2728 -- Limited Partnership
The law firm Roetzel & Andress (R&A) represented Schneider personally, not her companies. R&A told Schneider, who is the majority shareholder of the numerous companies, to stop selling unregistered notes. Schneider ignored and continued fraudulently selling the notes. It was argued R&A committed malpractice in connection with its representation of Schneider’s various companies by failing to " 'counsel ' its clients to cease their participation in a fraudulently sourced building project.
The Court found R&A did not commit malpractice as to the companies because Schneider, as president and majority owner, controlled this business entity, and her knowledge of the true nature of her illicit financing scheme must be imputed to her company. The firm had no duty to separately advise a minority owner.
Stuffleben v. Cowden, 2003-Ohio-6334 -- Close Corporation
Procedure: Defendants-appellants Gerald Cowden, Esq. and Cowden, Humphrey & Sarlson Co., L.P.A. (Cowden Humphrey) appeal the trial court 's decision granting plaintiff-appellee Brian Stuffleben 's (Stuffleben) motion to compel

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Main Line, however, argued there was no distinction between Basinger and Mighty Wind. Main Line said because the services bargained for were Basingers, when Basinger breached, Mighty Wind breached as well and that Mighty Wind was simply a “tax configuration.” The trial court said that everything that was done by Mighty Wind was done by Basinger and Basinger and Mighty Wind were not separated. The jury concluded both Basinger and Mighty Wind entered into oral and written contracts and had breached them. The defendants and appellants are appealing against the $8 million ruling against them from the judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of Main Line Pictures. This is in response to the breach of contract by Main Line and Kim Basinger in the production of the movie “Boxing Helena.” The defendants and appellants are appealing because they disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of the damages.…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Bdo Seidman, the court held that “protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary . . .” is good reason for a company to want to protect themselves. 690 N.Y.S.2d at 857 (citing Reed, Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 308 (1976)). The court held that an accounting firm’s clientele were not unique or extraordinary enough to give rise to protection against competition mainly because the accounting firm was national in nature, and the employee’s status at the firm was not unique or extraordinary in nature at all.…

    • 2550 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    For corporations, the government requires entrepreneurs to maintain a specific organizational structure. LLC operators are free to run their organization as they choose unless the founders set forth specific guidelines to the contrary in the articles of incorporation. LLCs are easier to manage and maintain than S and C corporations. The government does not require limited liability companies to follow strict reporting guidelines such as those imposed on full-fledged corporations. LLC operators do not have to conduct regular meetings and keep meeting records as with S and C corporations.…

    • 1202 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    With so many restrictive laws in place against corporations, it would be unconstitutional to infringe upon the company’s right to express their support of an independent body such as a super PAC (Epstein, 2011). Justice Stevens claims corporations are not a voting entity, and thus are not eligible to be protected by the First Amendment (Epstein, 2011). The argument against this would be the expression of a corporation is equal to a group of like-minded individuals. While groups do not have the power to vote, they have the power to express themselves freely (Epstein, 2011). Another argument could be made that use of money is not a form of expression and thus should not be protected by the First…

    • 1469 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A parent company has no liability to cover up its subsidiary's debt because of those principle. S 46 states that if the share of subsidiary company is hold by other company more wholly owned shares. Tort Liability is obtain from the salomon's case that a group company is no liable from all debts subsidiary and generally is separate from holding company because it not under control directly from its company. Application : Both companies…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Business Organization Law When deciding to incorporate in Delaware a business owner may register their business as a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), professional service or a nonprofit association. Although, a business owner may open a sole-proprietorship or a partnership these choices will not be considered because they do not provide limited liability protection for the business owner. Limited liability is protection to the business owner just like a corporation. Business owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims. Meaning, it the business cannot pay a creditor, such as a supplier, landlord or lender, the creditor cannot come after the LLC member’s house, car or other personal…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As in SMC a single member is owner he can conduct meetings at any time and there is no one in the company to check mismanagement that affects the firm activity. Pakistan used to follow English courts and we borrow corporate law from them. In England there are totally different corporative practices, totally different. Introducing SMC in Pakistan are not affecting its economy because there is no proper checks and balances in Pakistan legislative system toward SMC. Converting sole proprietorship into SMC help in documentation of economy but it’s not compatible for existing company laws.…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Shadow Director Case Study

    • 2248 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Failure to comply may render the directors or connected persons , including shadow directors, liable to account for any profit or loss to the company. In Smithton Ltd v Naggar , Court ruled that the person cannot be a shadow director since he did not wear the hat of the subsidiary’s director for the protested acts. 5.0 Conclusion This research paper is meant to demonstrate the evolution of laws in relation to shadow directors’ liabilities. Courts are imposing on shadow directors the fiduciary duties owed by de jure directors to avoid abuses in relation to the affairs of the company, protect company’s members and avoid the corporate structure to be used as a device for fraud. Legislations and judicial decisions are evolving with the purpose of clarifying the liability of the shadow directors such that it becomes more difficult to escape liability.…

    • 2248 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    These associations of citizens, that were referred to as corporations, Justice Kennedy felt were “the most significant segments of the economy." Citizens overruled Austin and felt it was not judged on reason. The majority failed to make clear the difference between "corporate speech about the general issues on the one hand and corporate speech specifically advocating the election or defeat of a candidate on the other" this clear distinction was what brought about Congress 's laws and the previous statues which address corporate speech as having two different aspects. Stevens and the 3 other justices who dissented found that corporations interest conflicted with the interest of eligible voters, and therefore could not be able bodies citizens who deserved free speech if these corporations could be run by foreign interests. Justice Stevens believed that "Corporate speech is a derivative speech, speech by proxy."…

    • 873 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The investor would have to prove that they relied on the information but they don’t have to prove that it was the defendants fault. The defense for this would be good faith (acting without scienter)that I had no knowledge that the statement was false or misleading. I had no idea about the overstating of the net sales and net profits or the siphoning of profits by the company President, but he did notice suspicious entries he believed to be bribes that he didn’t investigate further. (Mallor, 2010, p. 1202) b. Reginald Varghese would not be found liable under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 act. Rule 10b-5 bars any person from making a misstatement or omission of material fact in relation to the purchase or sale of any security.…

    • 1799 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays