Pasadena, MD
Ethics and professional responsibility Lawyer at Pasadena, MD
Practice Areas: Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Appeals ... +7 more
OUTCOME: The court held the denial of the attorney's motion to withdraw was appealable under the collateral order doctrine but dismissed appeal as it was not filed within 30 days of order
Appeal from denial of attorney's motion to withdraw.
OUTCOME: The judge denied the plaintiff's initial motion to remand to state court
Product liability case arising from alleged defect in pharmaceutical product
OUTCOME: U.S. District Judge dismissed lawsuit against Mr. Brennan's client
Civil rights, and legal malpractice, claim against attorneys who represented the plaintiff in a prior criminal proceeding in which he was convicted, as well as civil rights claims against federal judge ... s and other federal officials
OUTCOME: The trial court was affirmed
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this complex legal malpractice case. Both the U.S. Court of Appeal ... s for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland subsequently entered judgments against the plaintiff for the defendants' appellate and trial court costs, respectively, which resulted in a total judgment for costs in favor of the defendants of more than $8,500.
OUTCOME: Defendants' Motion tor Summary Judgment Granted
This was a complicated legal malpractice case involving several claims against the attorneys relating to representing the client in connection with his investment in franchises in 1998, the resolution ... through settlement and release of the client's disputes with the franchisor with regard to certain franchises in 2001, and sending settlement demand letters on behalf of the client with regard to disputes relating to another franchise in 2002 and 2003. The defendants moved for summary judgment , and the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion, entering judgment in favor of the defendants as to all claims.
OUTCOME: The trial court was affirmed
We represented the clients only on the appeal, after the trial court entered adverse judgments against them. The Court of Special Appeals adopted our argument that Maryland adopt the Restatement st ... andard regarding the circumstances in which plaintiffs can recover for wrongful death even though the plaintiffs' decedents committed suicide. Although the Court of Special Appeals rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the disallowance of wrongful death claims when the plaintiffs' decedents committed suicide, it then held that the record created by the plaintiffs in the trial court was insufficient to withstand summary judgment under the Restatement standard. The Court of Special Appeals also held that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' j.n.o.v. overturning a modest jury verdict on the non-wrongful death claim, but held that this error was harmless because the trial court had acted within its discretion in dismissing the claim for discovery violations.
OUTCOME: Denial of Plantiff's Motion to Compel Documents
The plaintiff sought production of the files of one of the defendant law firm's relating to the firm's representation of clients other than the plaintiff on matters relating to franchises. The defend ... ants objected to the documents requests on the grounds that the type of discovery sought was overly broad and unduly burdensome, given the context of the litigation, since the information sought was either irrelevant or marginally relevant and discovery of limited information on the topic by other means such as deposition questioning would be less burdensome and would also protect confidential and/or privileged information of the defendants' other clients. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents, holding that the type of discovery sought by the plaintiff was unjustifiably burdensome and would also impinge upon the right to confidentiality, and perhaps the attorney-client privilege, of the defendants' other clients. The court agreed with the defendants that deposition questioning on such limited topics related to the Defendants' experience in other situations relating to franchises was a preferable means of discovery.
OUTCOME: Non-Party Witness' Motion to Quash Denied
The court denied the motion to quash a subpoena seeking production of documents only filed by a signficant non-party witness, holding that service of such a subpoena does not require in-person deliver ... y to the recipient and that such a subpoena may be served by alternative means such as UPS or Federal Express.
OUTCOME: Defendant's Partial Summary Judgment Granted
The defendant moved for partial summary judgment that as a matter of law the plaintiff could not recover for his alleged emotional distress damages resulting from alleged legal malpractice, which oc ... curred during the defendant's representation of the plaintiff in connection with the purchase of a business. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. The court held that although Maryland's appellate courts have not squarely addressed this issue, existing Maryland law on issues such as proximate cause and whether emotional distress damages can be recovered in general negligence claims which result only in property damage rather than physical injury provide firm guidance which allowed the U.S. District Court to decide the issue. The court also held that existing Maryland law is consistent with those out-of-state cases which have disallowed such damages in legal malpractice cases. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the issue of law to the Maryland Court of Appeals for determination.
OUTCOME: Client Prevailed on Issue of Improper Venue
The Court of Special Appeals held that venue was improper in Montgomery County, and on that basis vacated a judgment entered against Mr. Lampros by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County before I und ... ertook his representation. The Court of Special Appeals also held that Mr. Lampros had not waived the issue of improper venue by filing an answer and counterclaim after he first had filed a motion to dismiss and/or transfer based on improper venue which was denied. by the trial court.