Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C. v. RIA R Squared, Inc.

Full text

Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C. v RIA R Squared, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 33778(U) October 23, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152115/2023 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. 152115/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024

SUPR EME COUR T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUN TY PRESENT: HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA PART 42M Justice ---------------------X INDEX NO. 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C., 05/07/2024, Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 05/17/2024

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 005 RIA R SQUARED, INC., DECISION + ORDER ON Defendant. MOTION ---------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,64, 65,84, 85,86 were read on this motion to/for QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,58, 59,60, 61,62, 63,66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80, 81, 82,83 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY APPEARANCES:

Klein berg, Kapla n, Wolff & Cohen , PC, New York, New York, (Davi d Marc Levy, Esq., of coun sel), for plain tiff.

Mand elbaum Barr ett PC, New York, New York, (Bori s Peyzn er, Esq., of coun sel), for defen dant.

HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA:

In this breac h of contr act actio n to recov er unpai d legal fees, defen dant RIA R SQUARED, INC. (clie nt) moves (moti on

seque nce 003), pursu ant to CPLR § 3103, 1 for a prote ctive order

INDEX NO. 152115/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024

but not limi ted to, all time reco rds refle cting or desc ribin g work by succ esso r coun sel" (id.) .

Law firm simu ltane ously serve d on clien t its secon d set of requ ests to prod uce docu ment s. Ther ein, law firm requ ests, amon g othe r thing s:

"docu ment s and comm unica tions conc ernin g succ esso r coun sel's effo rts to reso lve [the laws uits] inclu ding , but not limi ted to, invo ices for lega l serv ices and comm unica tions conc ernin g the even tual settl emen t of the- case s; amou nts bille d and paid by [clie nt] inclu ding , but not limi ted to, invo ices for lega l serv ices and all time reco rds refle cting work by succ esso r coun sel"

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 59, Seco nd Set of Requ ests for Prod uctio n of Docu ment s, 11-5 ; 23).

Clie nt subm itted obje ction s to the inter roga torie s numb ered nine throu gh 11 and docum ent requ ests one throu gh five, and 23, on the groun d of the attor ney- clien t priv ilege (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 58, Clie nt's Firs t Amen ded Obje ction s and Resp onses to Law Firm 's Inte rrog ator ies, p 11-1 2; see also NYSC EF Doc. No. 58, Clie nt's Firs t Obje ction s and Resp onses to Law Firm 's Docu ment Requ ests, p 5-6; 12).

Law firm then serve d a subp oena duce s tecum upon clie nt's succ esso r coun sel nonp arty Anse ll Grimm & Aaro n, PC (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 46, Subp oena Duce s Tecum ). The subp oena cont ained 25 docum ent requ ests, inclu ding , but not limi ted to:

152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 5 of 12 Motion No. 003 005

INDEX NO. 152115/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024

this acti on" (Sto ck v Schn ader Har riso n Seg al & Lew is LLP, 142 AD3d 210, 241 [1st Dep t 201 6]). Fur ther , whi le succ esso r coun sel and clie nt sure ly disc usse d law firm 's alle ged mal prac tice , such disc ussi ons with out more do not plac e "at issu e" the ir con fide ntia l com mun icati ons in this rega rd (see gen eral ly Deu tsch e Bank Tru st Co. of Ame rica s, 43 AD3d at 65). Sim ilar ly, neit her succ esso r cou nse l's neg otia tion of a sett lem ent in the law suit s nor clie nt's asse rtio n of that fact plac e "at issu e" priv ileg ed com mun icati on surr oun ding such sett lem ent (id. ).

Seco nd, law firm has not esta blis hed that the priv ileg ed info rma tion it seek s is nece ssar y to eva luat e clie nt's clai m for mal prac tice or to defe nd aga inst such clai m (see gen eral ly Deu tsch e Bank Tru st Co. of Ame rica s, 43 AD3d at 64; ~ also Cor rier i, 2012 NY Slip Op 3012 0[U] , *² [hol ding that to supp ort pla inti ffs' pos itio n that they are not gui lty of mal prac tice , pla inti ffs do not need to know whe ther defe nda nts or defe nda nts' new cou nsel thou ght pla inti ffs acte d neg lige ntly ]); see also IDT Corp . v Mor gan Stan ley Dean Wit ter & Co., 107 AD3d 451 [1st Dep t 2013 ]) .

At issu e in a lega l mal prac tice clai m is whe ther an atto rney "fai led to exe rcis e the ordi nary reas ona ble ski ll and know ledg e com mon ly poss esse d by a mem ber of the lega l prof essi on" (Rud olf v Shay ne, Dac hs, Stan isci , Cor ker & Sau er, 8 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLF F & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUAR ED, INC. Motion No. 003 005 Page 10 of 12

10 of 12 [* 10]

INDEX NO. 152115/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024

NY3d 438 (2007 ]). Law firm has firsth and know ledge of its legal

work and effor ts on beha lf of clien t, inclu ding their

comm unica tions about such repre senta tion. Lastl y, wheth er law firm reaso nably incur red the claim ed attor neys ' fees is fact speci fic to the law firm' s proce ss, not to succe ssor coun sel's invoi ces, billi ng ledge rs, and comm unica tions (see Deuts che Bank Trust Co. of Amer icas, 43 AD3d at 65).

Given that law firm' s subpo ena duces tecum again st

succe ssor couns el seeks essen tially the same infor matio n sough t in the inter roga torie s and docum ent deman d, the attor ney- clien t privi lege also appli es in this regar d.

Acco rding ly, it is

ORDERED that RIA R SQUARED, INC. 's motio n (seq. no. 003) for a prote ctive order pursu ant to CPLR § 3103 is grant ed, and the subpo ena duces tecum serve d upon succe ssor couns el by law firm is quash ed; and it is furth er

ORDERED that KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C.' s motio n (seq. no. 005) to compe l clien t to produ ce docum ents respo nsive to law firm' s docum ent reque sts numb ered one throu gh five, and 23, and inter roga torie s numb ered nine throu gh 11, is denie d in its entir ety.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECIS ION AND ORDER OF THE COURT .

152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 11 of 12 Motion No. 003 005

11 of 12 [* 11]

INDEX NO. 152115/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART 0 OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 12 of 12 Motion No. 003 005

12 of 12 [* 12]

Footnotes

[1] CPLR § 3103{a ) provid es: "The court may at any time on its own initia tive, or on motion of any party or any person from whom or about whom discov ery is sought , make a protec tive order denyin g, limiti ng, condit ioning , or regula ting the use of any disclo sure device . Such order shall be design ed to preven t unreas onable annoya nce, expens e, embar rassme nt, disadv antage , or other prejud ice to any person or the courts ." 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 1 of 12 Motion No. 003 005 1 of 12 [* 1] quash ing plain tiff's KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C.'s third- party subpo ena duces tecum served upon Ansel l Grimm & Aaron, PC (succe ssor couns el) on the ground that the subpoe na seeks the disclo sure of inform ation protec ted by the attorn ey- clien t privil ege. Plain tiff KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. (law firm) oppose s the motio n (seq. no. 003), and separ ately moves (motio n sequen ce 005), pursu ant to CPLR § 3124, 2 for an order compe lling clien t to (a) produ ce docum ents respon sive to law firm's Docum ent Reque sts numbe red one throug h five, and 23; and to (b) subst antive ly respon d to law firm's Interr ogato ries numbe red nine throug h 11. 3 Clien t oppos es this motion . For the reason s set forth below , the court grants clien t's motion (seq. no. 003) for a prote ctive order and denies law firm's motion (seq. no. 005) to compe l. BACKGROUND

[2] CPLR § 3124 provid es: "If a person fails to respond to or comply with any reques t, notice, interro gatory , demand, questio n or order under this article , except a notice to admit under section 3123, the party seeking disclos ure may move to compel complia nce or respon se."

[3] These specif ic docume nt reques ts and interro gatorie s are the only demands at issue in the instan t motion due to client 's objecti ons on the ground of attorne y-clien t privile ge. Client answere d and/or objecte d to other parts of the interro gatorie s and demand s, but on differe nt ground s, and those are not at issue here. 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED , INC. Page 2 of 12 Motion No.. 003 005 2 of 12 [* 2] On or aroun d May, 201 2021 , defen dant RIA SQUA RED, INC. (clie nt) retai ned plai ntiff KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. (law firm ), a Manh attan base d law firm, to repre sent it in four disti nct matt ers (law suits ) (see NY St Cts Elec Filin g [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 001, Com plain t, at 19; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 41, Enga geme nt Lette r) . 4 Thes e matt ers inclu ded comm encin g and litig atin g sepa rate actio ns agai nst non- parti es Paul Mccow n (Mcco wn), Wyom ing Cath olic Colle ge, Phil lip Mcco wn, and DW Capi tal Partn ers, LLC (see id., at 16, 17). Afte r over a year of such repr esen tatio n, clien t term inate d law firm as its coun sel and retai ned non- party Anse ll Grimm & Aaro n, PC, who becam e succ esso r coun sel in the laws uits. Ther eafte r, on Marc h 06, 2024 , law firm comm enced the insta nt actio n agai nst clien t, seek ing no less than $503 ,765. 77 in attor neys ' fees. Clie nt time ly answ ered the comp laint and, with the cour t's subse quen t perm issio n, filed an amen ded answ er, asse rting coun tercl aims for lega l malp racti ce, breac h of cont ract, and acco untin g (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 35, Deci sion and Orde r, dated Dece mber 7, 2023 ; see NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, Answ er with Coun tercl aims ).

[4] The four matte rs were: (1) RIA v Wyomi ng Catho lic Colle ge, US Dist Ct, WY, Case No. 21-CV -0022; (2) RIA v Paul McCown, et al., US Dist Ct, WY, Case No. 21-CV -125; (3) RIA v Phill ip Mccow n, us Dist Ct, MI, Case No. 21-CV -12937 ; and (4) RIA v DW Partn ers, et al., Sup Ct, NY Cnty, Index No. 65110 1/202 2. 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 3 of 12 Motion No. 003 005 3 of 12 [* 3] Clien t alleg es that law firm withh eld criti cal docum ents and infor matio n in the actio ns again st non-p arty Wyom ing Catho lic Colle ge and Phill ip Mccow n, unne cessa rily prolo nging those matte rs and infla ting their legal fees. Clien t furth er alleg es that law firm withh eld infor matio n that preve nted clien t from adequ ately asses sing its claim s, its settle ment offer s, and its likeli hood of recov ering damag es (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, Answ er with Coun tercla ims, at 1 93). In addit ion, clien t alleg es that law firm overb illed for unnec essar y work, and faile d to segre gate its bills in each matte r (see id., at 1 66, 82, 84). Final ly, clien t highl ights that 11 days after it termi nated its relat ionsh ip with law firm clien t's succe ssor couns el in "RIA v Wyom ing Catho lic Colle ge" settl ed that matte r (id., at 154). Follo wing the amend ed answe r, law firm serve d its first set of Inter rogat ories upon clien t. Among other thing s, law firm' s inter roga torie s ask clien t to "desc rib[e ] in detai l [both ] 'succ essor coun sel's effor ts'" to settl e RIA v Wyom ing Catho lic Colle ge and succe ssor coun sel's billi ng amou nts (NYSC EF Doc. No. 60, First Set of Inter roga torie s, 19-11 ). Law firm also sough t discl osure of clien t's paym ents to succe ssor couns el "in conne ction with [the separ ate matte rs again st non-p arties Phill ip] Mccow n and DW [DW Capi tal Partn ers, LLC], inclu ding, 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 4 of 12 Motion No. 003 005 4 of 12 [* 4]

[5] of 12 [* 5] "all docu ment s and comm unica tions conc ernin g [law firm 's] repr esen tatio n of [clie nt] in conn ectio n with DW and Mcco wn; all docu ment s and comm unica tions conc ernin g [law firm 's] repr esen tatio n of [clie nt] in DW inclu ding any instr uctio ns or requ ests from [clie nt] to [law firm ], and any advi ce prov ided to [clie nt] by [law firm ]; all comm unica tions conc ernin g the lega l fees charg ed by [law firm] for prof essio nal serv ices rend ered on beha lf of [clie nt]; all docu ment s and comm unica tion conc ernin g any cont entio n that [law firm] did not prov ide comp etent lega l serv ices to [clie nt]; docu ment s and comm unica tions suff icien t to show the amou nts bille d and paid by [clie nt] for invo ices for lega l serv ices and all time reco rds refle cting work by You; all docu ment s and comm unica tions conc ernin g any comp laint s made by [clie nt] abou t [law firm 's] bills , billi ng prac tices , or alleg edly exce ssive time char ges; and all docu ment s and comm unica tions conc ernin g any instr uctio ns by [clie nt] that you shou ld refra in from perfo rmin g any pote ntial lega l serv ices due to cost or effic ienc y conc erns" Clie nt then filed the insta nt motio n (seq. no. 003) , purs uant ~o CPLR § 3103. , for a prot ectiv e orde r, quas hing law firm 's subp oena argu ing both that the subp oena calls for priv ilege d mate rials and that said priv ilege has not been waiv ed (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 49, Clie nt's Memo randu m of Law) . Law firm oppo sed the moti on. Howe ver, prio r to filin g its oppo sitio n, law firm filed the motio n (seq. no. 005) , purs uant to CPLR § 3124 , for an orde r 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 6 of 12 Motion No. 003 005

[6] of 12 [* 6] comp elling clien t to (a) produ ce docum ents respo nsive to law firm' s Docum ent Requ ests numb ered one throu gh five, and 23; and to (b) subst antiv ely respo nd to law firm' s Inter rogat ories numb ered nine throu gh 11. 5 Law firm essen tially argue s that clien t waive d its attor ney- clien t privi lege as it plead ed succe ssor coun sel's repre senta tion of clien t as "proo f of [law firm' s] malp ractic e" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 53, Law Firm 's Memo randum of Law, p 13 ) . Clien t subm its oppo sition to law firm' s motio n, advan cing the same argum ents asser ted in clien t's motio n for a prote ctive order (see NYSCEF Doc. No 73, Clien t's Oppo sition to Law Firm 's Motio n to Comp el). ANALYSIS Open dialo gue betwe en lawye r and clien t is "esse ntial to effec tive repre senta tion and [the attor ney- clien t privi lege] exten ds to both comm unica tions from clien t to lawye r and. [from] lawye r to clien t" (Matt er of App. Advo cs. v New York State Dep't of Corr. & Crnty. Supe rvisio n, 40 NY3d 547, 552 5 Upon review of the motion (seq. no. 005) and exhib its attach ed theret o, it does not appear that the partie s engage d in a formal "meet and confer " proces s prior to the filing of the instan t motion . Howev er, in suppo rt of law firm's motion , law firm does submit severa l letter s exchan ged betwee n counse l in which the discov ery issues were discus sed in great detail , includ ing on March 29, 2024; April 23, 2024; and May 13, 2024 (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 62, 79, 80, Letter s). Accor dingly , in the intere st of reachi ng a decisi on on the merits , the court finds that law firm's papers are compl iant with 22 NYCRR § 202.7. 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARE D, INC. Page 7 of 12 Motion No. 003 005

[7] of 12 [* 7] [2023 ], citin g Spect rum Sys. Int'l Corp. v Chem. Bank,

[78] NY2d 371, 377 (1991 ]). "Unle ss the clien t waive s the privi lege, an attor ney shall not discl ose, or be allow ed to discl ose such comm unica tion, nor shall the clien t be comp elled to discl ose such comm unica tion, in any actio n. . ." (CPLR 4503 § [a] [1]). Waive r of the privi lege may occur if a clien t "affi rmat ively place s the subje ct matte r of privi leged comm unica tion at issue in litiga tion" (Norum a Asset Cap. Corp. v Cadw alade r, Wicke rsham & Taft LLP, 62 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2009] [emph asis added ], citin g Deuts che Bank Trust Co. of Amer icas v Tri-L inks Inv. Tr., 43 AD3d 56, 63 [1st Dept 2007 ]). This "'at issue ' waive r occur s when a party has asser ted a claim or defen se that [it] inten ds to prove by use of the privi leged mate rials" (Deut sche Bank Trust Co. of Amer icas, 43 AD3d at 63). Howe ver, even then, the propo nent of discl osure must show that the privi leged infor matio n "is requi red to deter mine the valid ity of a [clie nt's] claim or defen se" and that apply ing the privi lege would "depr ive the adver sary of vital infor matio n" (id., at 64; see Cred it Suiss e First Bos. v Utrec het-A m. Fin. Co., 27 AD3d 253 [1st Dept 2006 ]). A lesse r stand ard would risk "rend er[in g] the privi lege illus ory in all legal malp ractic e actio ns" (Corr ieri v Schw artz & Fang. , P. C., 2012 NY Slip Op 30120 [U] [Sup Ct, NY Cnty 2012] , 152115/2023 KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUARED, INC. Page 8 of 12 Motion No. 003 005 8 of 12 [* 8] affd 106 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013 ], citin g Jako bleff v Cerr ato, Swee ney and Cohn , 97 AD2d 834, 835 [2d Dept 1983 ]). In lega l malp racti ce claim s, like here , New York cour ts have rout inely refus ed to find an "at issue " waiv er of priv ilege d mate rials exch ange d betw een a clien t and succ esso r coun sel ( s e e ~ , Corr ieri, 106 AD3d at 644 [find ing that defe ndan ts' moti on to comp el the priv ilege d comm unica tions betw een plai ntiff s and coun sel, who subs titut ed defe ndan ts, was prop erly deni ed]; Lue v Fink elste in & Partn ers, 67 AD3d 1187 [3d Dept 2009] [hold ing that the form er clie nt's discu ssion s with new coun sel rega rding settl emen t of his perso nal injur y actio n fell with in scop e of attor ney- clien t priv ilege and were not subj ect to discl osur e in the form er clie nt's subs eque nt lega l malp racti ce actio ns agai nst the law firm that had initi ally repre sente d him] ; Carl v Cohe n, 23 Misc 3d lll0[ A] [Sup Ct, NY Cnty 2009] [dete rmin ing that plai ntiff was enti tled to prot ectiv e orde r deny ing defe ndan t's third -par ty subp oena on his succ esso r attor neys , as defen dant did not need furth er disco very of plai ntif f's succ esso r attor neys to asse rt a defen se to this lega l malp racti ce actio n]). Appl ying these prin ciple s here , the cour t finds law firm faile d to esta blish that clien t waiv ed the priv ilege . Firs t, no indic ation exis ts that clien t inten ds "to use the priv ilege d [com muni catio ns] to prov e any claim or defen se in 152115/2023 KLEINB ERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C. vs. RIA R SQUAR ED, INC. Page 9 of 12 Motion No. 003 005 9 of 12 [* 9]