A recent
Law Times story
"Judge tosses 'scurrilous' claims against lawyer" makes a thought-provoking (if somewhat complicated) read, especially since the "scurrilous" claims were made by lawyer's former paralegal and law clerk, Domenic Rosso.
Superior Court Justice Helen Pierce, in a decision awarding costs last month, specifically condemned Rosso’s pleadings and an affidavit that exceeded 40 pages and was teeming with allegations about his former boss’ professional behaviour and personal life.
“A lawyer’s reputation is delicate. He or she works a lifetime to establish it. It can be shattered in a moment by careless or vengeful pleading, as was attempted in this case,” Pierce wrote in 1013952 Ont. Inc. et al v. Sakinofsky et al.
Gavin Tighe, counsel for one of the parties, describes the multi-claim litigation as "like a Russian doll" but I'll try to summarize it briefly. (See also the October 9, 2009
"Reasons on Motion to Dismiss Third Party Claim" in this case, which contains a thorough discussion of the reasons the case was initiated - and the limitations of the applicable malpractice insurance coverage.)
Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub sued its insurance company, when questions arose about a fire.
Over a year later, Silverado's suit was dropped due to "delays."
Displeased with that outcome, Silverado sued its own counsel, Julian Sakinofsky of Lende Sakinofsky & Associates, for professional malpractice.
Julian Sakinofsky turned around and filed a third party claim against his paralegal/law clerk, Rosso, "blaming him for dropping the ball on the file."
(Remember, this is Canada, and in this particular instance, the malpractice policy
did not cover law clerks, paralegals or legal assistants. If you're a U.S. paralegal, you can't be sued for legal malpractice - as opposed to practicing law without a license. But your supervising attorney can do other unpleasant things, like fire you or
blame you publicly.)
Rosso responded by filing counterclaims against Sakinofsky and his former junior associate, Joseph Gouveia, plus Sakinofsky's new firm and his malpractice carrier, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company (commonly known as "LawPro").
But the court focused its ire on Rosso's behavior during the course of litigation, including finding that the junior associate was not responsible for supervising his boss - and granted him "substantial indemnity costs based on Rosso's conduct."
In a nutshell, Judge Pierce dismissed a number of claims against parties sued by Rosso, and issued a blistering condemnation of the inappropriate personal nature of many of the allegations against Sakinofsky contained in Rosso's pleadings.
According to the article, Rosso has counsel, Hartley Isenberg, and has appealed the decision.
I haven't seen the pleadings, but when a judge uses the words "scurrilous" and "vengeful" to describe them, they sound like a lesson in what not to do when drafting allegations in a lawsuit.
But who was responsible for the offensive, and per the court's view, unnecessary personal attack in the pleadings? Will Rosso will sue Isenberg next?
Sources:
Law Times;
Canadian Insurance Law Blog
