ILNews

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney who withdrew as counsel for two related family-owned businesses did not make false and defamatory statements in explaining his withdrawal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

In James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch v. C. Joseph Yast, No. 45A05-1107-CT-377, James Gagan had claimed that C. Joseph Yast made defamatory statements in a conversation with Gagan’s son, Jamie. Yast is an attorney and was close friends with the Gagan family for nearly 30 years. Yast represented the Gagans and their various businesses in numerous lawsuits during a 20-year period. In 2006, Gagan, founder of DirectBuy, offered Yast a position as the company’s vice president and general counsel, and Yast accepted. Yast’s employment contract allowed him to work on outside projects, and Yast represented Jamie Gagan’s company ThinkTank in various litigation matters.

In 2007, Gagan and the minority shareholders in DirectBuy sold the company to Trivest, a holding company, for $550 million. Gagan and the other shareholders had taken $17 million in member merchandise money as a dividend, and Trivest challenged that withdrawal under the merger. DirectBuy’s highest ranking officers contacted Gagan to explain their concerns, believing the withdrawal was inconsistent with the company’s core values.

When Trivest and Gagan and the other sellers were unable to reach an agreement, Yast withdrew his appearance for Gagan in federal litigation, believing that representing Gagan presented a conflict of interest. Yast also determined that his conflict with Gagan created a conflict of interest in continuing to represent ThinkTank. Yast called Jamie to explain why he was withdrawing from ThinkTank litigation.

Two days later, Jamie filed a disciplinary grievance against Yast, challenging the manner in which Yast withdrew his representation. Jamie argued that Yast’s disclosure of his conflict of interest in their telephone call on April 23, 2008, was inappropriate because Yast’s purpose was to leverage his withdrawal to force Gagan to capitulate in his dispute with Trivest. The Disciplinary Commission determined that Jamie’s grievance did not raise a substantial question of misconduct and dismissed the matter on April 1, 2010.

In its opinion, the COA held that Gagan and the other sellers set forth no designated evidence demonstrating that they have suffered any reputational harm or actual damage from Yast’s statements to Jamie during the telephone call and that no evidence supported the claim that Yast abused his qualified common interest privilege. The COA concluded that the trial court properly granted Yast’s motion for summary judgment on this basis.

 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT