Bingham’s Bungling

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Willton says:

    Any Professional Responsibility professors planning on using this case on the first day of class?

  2. Ken Rhodes says:

    Lawrence — Thank you for a wonderful laugh to brighten up my day. A note of explanation…

    I have been a fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers for sixty years. Even though I live on the East Coast, I keep in touch with the team (actions and rumors) via the Internet, and correspond with many other hopelessly/helplessly addicted fans of The Bums on several Dodgers message boards. Needless to say, the shenanigans of the McCourts have been a hot topic in recent months.

    Until now, with my avid reading about the team, I was kept abreast of the latest info on the mishandling of the legal documents, and the resulting chaos in the management of the team. However, I had not noticed any mention of the fact that this Silverstein clown was anything but a one-lawyer shop with one client. Imagine my delight to discover that he is a partner in a galactic old Boston firm.

  3. cal lawyer says:

    it also has echoes of Viner v. Sweet, where a DC-based family lawyer missed an important California law issue.
    70 P.2d 1046

  4. A serious breach says:

    One thing I don’t understand is how, if Silverstein went back and changed the documents, his fraud was detected.

    Also the swipe at the Boston legal market was unnecessary.

  5. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Re “A serious breach”

    (1) The switch was uncovered five years later during the discovery phase of litigation between the McCourts in their divorce trial.

    (2) I did not remotely intend a swipe at the Boston legal market. Having taught at Boston College Law School for many years and served as Academic Dean there, I know the community and think highly of it. Old-fashioned is good.

    My swipe is targeted at the new-fangled, globe-trotting, thousand-lawyer, dozen-office, heavily-advertised law firm lacking sufficient quality control to proofread and collate documents and correct mistakes.

  6. Ken Rhodes says:

    “One thing I don’t understand is how, if Silverstein went back and changed the documents, his fraud was detected.”

    Well, the doofus forgot to change all the copies to match, so he wound up with two different versions in circulation.