ILNews

Judge denies summary judgment for law firm

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge has denied summary judgment for an Indianapolis law firm accused of failing to comply with court-ordered fee processes and charging more than necessary for its work as a receiver.

U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney denied Riley Bennett Egloff's motion for summary judgment Friday in Neil Lucas, individually and on behalf of Phonebillit, Inc., as shareholder v. Riley Bennett Egloff, No. 1:07-CV-534. Neil Lucas filed his suit in 2007 accusing the firm of having a conflict of interest in its role as custodian and then receiver of Phonebillit Inc. Lucas and another owner of the company were in a dispute with the third owner of Phonebillit, Steven Sann, about whether Sann owned 50 percent of the company or 41 percent. RBE took over as custodian of Phonebillit when former RBE attorney Timothy Freeman was removed in 2005.

A court later that year determined that Sann owned only 41 percent of stock.

In his suit, Lucas accused Freeman and RBE of having undisclosed conflicts of interest because Freeman had made personal cash payments to Sann's attorney in Montana for possible purchase of an undisclosed ownership interest in Sann's new entity. The suit also alleged RBE used its authority as receiver to defend Phonebillit's ability to recover damages against the firm for alleged malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties.

The suit claimed RBE sold most of the assets of Phonebillit to Sann for $5,000 after telling the other shareholders nothing would be sold to Sann. It also alleged the company lost around $135,000 in six weeks after another company took over call-center operations; RBE made unauthorized cash payments to Sann; and the law firm sold Lucas' stock in Brightpoint that was held in escrow at the suggestion of Sann, resulting in a loss of more than $75,000 because the proceeds were placed in a low-interest savings account.

Lucas also said RBE's attorney fees were excessive and undocumented, and the firm repeatedly failed to comply with a court-ordered fee submission and approval process.

RBE moved for summary judgment, arguing that Lucas asserted a claim for legal malpractice which entitled the firm to an affirmative defense based on the business judgment rule. Lucas argued that RBE's liability stemmed from its duty as an escrow agent. Judge McKinney wrote the parties' arguments based on those theories are misplaced.

"This case presents a claim against a receiver for the alleged breach of the duties it owed to one of the receivership's creditors or one with whom the receiver was in privity," wrote the judge.

Lucas didn't assert a claim for legal malpractice, nor did he present a claim against an escrow agent. Also, the business judgment rule has no place in the litigation, the judge continued, because RBE was an arm of the court as the receiver.

Judge McKinney also denied Lucas' motion to strike the firm's affirmative defenses and RBE's motion for summary judgment on those defenses because there are triable issues of fact. He also denied the firm's motion for judgment as a matter of law/involuntary dismissal.

At the Feb. 26 pre-trial hearing, the court will address whether RBE's motion in limine and request for a protective order is moot, and RBE's motion to exclude expert testimony, including specific testimony from Lucas. A jury trial has been set for March 8.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT