Appeal Taking Shape in $103 Million Baker & McKenzie Legal Malpractice Case
Baker & McKenzie has filed standard post-trial motions setting up the appeal of the $103 million jury verdict against the firm in Jones County in October. Here is the Motion for JNOV. Here is the Motion for New Trial.
The appeal will be a high stakes battle. Based on the motion for JNOV, it's clear that Baker & McKenzie will argue that the Supreme Court should reverse and render in the case. That would send the plaintiffs home with a loss without there even being a second trial. I have no idea what the prospects are on the appeal.
It appears that David Clark, Wayne Drinkwater and Margaret Cupples of Bradley Arant in Jackson are the lead appellate lawyers in the case. They are really good appellate lawyers.
It's my understanding that the hearing on the motions was scheduled for this week. It's highly unlikely that the trial court will grant either of the motions, but filing the motions is a necessary step for any appeal. I suspect that it will be 18–24 months before the Supreme Court decides the appeal.
For prior posts on the verdict see here.
"but filing the motions is a necessary step for any appeal"
One always hears this, but is it true? If they moved for directed verdict, doesn't that preserve the error? And re: new trial, if they timely objected to whatever errors are the basis for that, isn't that preserved?
They would need to file a post-trial motion for remittitur if they sought that, but otherwise, aren't most errors preserved by timely objections and a motion for directed verdict?
This is one of those cases where, if reversed and rendered, the appeal bond costs are going to be tough on the plaintiff! I cant imagine the verdict getting passed the MSSC without a significant haircut at a minimum or more likely reversed.
I would expect the plaintiffs to waive the appeal bond for just that reason, but who knows.
If anyone thinks that the MSSC is going to let this verdict stand as is, then I'd like some of whatever you're smoking, provided it doesn't turn me into a licensee.
It's a tough situation for the defendants. Can they really afford to settle, and have this impugnment of their lawyers hanging out there? And even if they *can*, are they so emotionally affronted that they *won't*?
If the facts proved at trial resembled those pleaded in the complaint, the best they can hope for is a sizable reduction in the verdict, and that is the same as a loss from the reputational standpoint. And today's MSSC is not the Jim Smith MSSC. Kitchens, Chandler, Graves (if still around) ... all the plaintiff needs is 2 votes. Carlson and Lamar are really the only "reliable conservatives" on the Court right now.
I think both sides have a strong incentive to settle, and predictions are fun, so I will PREDICT that this case settles before it's decided on appeal.
"Carlson and Lamar are the only reliable conservatives?" No offense, but have you heard of Justices Randolph and Dickinson, and have you read any of the opinions that have been handed down in the past 1-2 years? Not to mention that Bubba will, I guarantee you, become a reliably conservative vote - he was literally groomed by Barbour to defeat Diaz and be elected to the Supreme Court for just that purpose. He's just new and laying low while he learns the ropes. And I would hardly call Waller a moderate. Once Graves is gone, the court will officially have one true plaintiff-friendly justice (Kitchens), and one moderate (Chandler). The rest, all varying extremes of conservative.
"No offense, but have you heard of Justices Randolph and Dickinson, and have you read any of the opinions that have been handed down in the past 1-2 years?"
I read the handdowns every week, and I am not at all convinced that Randolph or Dickinson are reliably pro-defendant or pro-plaintiff. They seem to call 'em as they see 'em (which does not make them more "right" or "wrong" than others).
Whatever Pierce may "become," he has voted with Kitchens and Chandler several times in a plaintiff's favor. I don't know where your notions about "grooming" derive from.
I'm sorry you don't think Waller is a moderate, but he is hardly a lock-in for the defense like Smith was. (Remember what his daddy does for a living?) And if you think *Chandler* is a "moderate," well, you are coming at things from a skewed perspective.
Randolph and Dickinson call them as they see them, no bias or prejudice? I can't even read that sentence without laughing.
I believe my (well-accepted) notions about Pierce's grooming stem from the fact that Barbour plucked him out of nowhere to be a low-level judge for a few years so he could claim judicial experience in a district that was sure to be a tough election for Diaz, due to the constant harping of his involvement in the whole Paul Minor fiasco, courtesy of the Chamber of Commerce. But no, you're right, I'm sure it was a coincidence and there was nothing intentional or carefully planned there.
Like you, I'm well aware of what Waller's father does for a living. I imagine he's thrilled with his son's judicial record.
Normally, I would chalk your comments up to simple, or at most willful, ignorance, but aren't you a defense attorney? I can easily see how you would advocate the current MSSC as "having only two reliably conservative votes." Most independent observers recognize the far more obvious truth. But hey brother, by all means, justify your deluded opinions however you wish.
And though I don't have all day, let's throw in a couple of weeks from 12/10:
Fed. Tower v. L.R. - D verdict, Kitchens Chandler & Pierce dissent, Waller & Graves n.p.
Berry v. Patten - D verdict, all justices
Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe - D verdict, Kitchens & Graves dissent
Holder v. Orange Grove - D verdict, Pierce Waller & Lamar concur "w/ discomfort," Kitchens Graves & Chandler dissent
Lincoln Elec. v. McLemore - D verdict, Kitchens & Graves dissent.
... You can take Kitchens & Graves's outlier status as evidence that the Court is tilted to the right ... or you can make another inference from it.
But even from these small samples, it seems unlikely that Pierce is any sort of "Barbour vote" on the Court, and there's no one voting as consistently against plaintiffs as Kitchens and Graves do against defendants.