Board Certified Civil Appellate Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Law Firm Succeeds in Reversing $2 Million Judgment Awarded to General Counsel Based on Alleged Fee-Sharing Agreement

February 4, 2020 in case summaries
Jeff Levinger successfully represented Houston-based law firm Cokinos, Bosien & Young in its effort to overturn a $2 million judgment awarded to the estate of a general counsel employed by a Cokinos client. In an unusual set of facts, the former general counsel of Ruhrpumpen, Inc. alleged that the Cokinos firm had promised to pay him 20 percent of a contingent fee that the firm and Ruhrpumpen had negotiated in connection with a lawsuit against a competitor.  After the general counsel died, the litigation settled and Ruhrpumpen paid the firm a seven-figure contingent fee. The estate then sued to recover a 20 percent share of the fee, and the trial court rendered summary judgment in its favor. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding that the alleged fee-sharing agreement was void because Ruhrpumpen had not consented to it in writing, as Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.04(f) requires. In rejecting the estate’s argument that the general counsel had authority as Ruhrpumpen’s agent to consent to the fee-sharing agreement, the court held that the general counsel owed Ruhrpumpen a fiduciary duty not to accept compensation outside of his salary and thus could not consent to the fee-sharing agreement without first disclosing it to Ruhrpumpen. The court further rejected the estate’s efforts to avoid altogether the requirements of Rule 1.04(f). Cokinos, Bosien & Young v. Sheila Moore, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Eugene H. Moore, No. 05-18-01340-CV, 2020 WL 549066 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 4, 2020, no pet.).
Courts: Texas Intermediate Courts
Subject Matter: Ethics and Professional Malpractice
By | February 4th, 2020|Comments Off on Law Firm Succeeds in Reversing $2 Million Judgment Awarded to General Counsel Based on Alleged Fee-Sharing Agreement
Read More

Court of Appeals Affirms Arbitration Award in Favor of Law Firm Despite Absence of Appellee’s Brief

Hired just three weeks before oral argument, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm an arbitration award in favor of the law firm of Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith and Uhl—even though the firm had not previously filed an appellees’ brief. Based on Levinger’s oral argument, the appellate court held that the firm’s former client, who was trying to avoid a $770,000 arbitration award, did not timely challenge the award and was not entitled to invoke the doctrines of equitable tolling or estoppel to excuse the untimely challenge. The court also accepted Levinger’s stipulation that the former client was entitled to a credit for the amount of a settlement the firm had previously received from a guarantor of the fee charged to the client, thus avoiding a remand and further litigation. As a side note, Levinger had assisted the law firm in the early stages of the arbitration by briefing and successfully arguing a response to the former client’s summary-judgment motion. Fisher v. Daniel K. Hagood P.C. and Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith and Uhl, Inc., No. 05-19-00106-CV, 2019 WL 6711675 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 10, 2019, no pet.).

By | December 10th, 2019|Comments Off on Court of Appeals Affirms Arbitration Award in Favor of Law Firm Despite Absence of Appellee’s Brief
Read More

Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Purchasers of Estate Property

June 13, 2018 in Case Summaries

In a long-running dispute between Stanley Graff and the purchasers of a multi-million-dollar apartment complex owned by the estate of Graff’s father, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm the probate court’s summary judgment rejecting Graff’s effort to rescind or recover damages arising from the October 2000 purchase of the complex.  Among other rulings, the Court held that Graff’s claims of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud accrued by August 2002 and thus were barred by the four-year statute of limitations; that the independent executor had the authority to sell the real property and thus the transaction should not be rescinded; and that Graff’s claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the purchasers failed because there was no evidence that they assisted an appraiser in his valuation of the property.  Graff v. 2920 Park Grove Venture, Ltd., No. 05-16-01411-CV, 2018 WL 2949158 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Ethics & Professional Liability

By | June 13th, 2018|Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Purchasers of Estate Property
Read More

Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

June 2, 2017 in Speeches

Using a colorful hypothetical about a lawyer named Andy Attorney, Jeff Levinger and Michael Eady co-presented a discussion about legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and the politics of the Texas Pattern Jury Charges at the University of Texas’s 27th Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals. Their central thesis was that the current one-size-fits-all pattern jury question for fiduciary duty cases is not suitable for the myriad of fact patterns arising in breach of fiduciary duty cases against attorneys. Accordingly, they suggested ways to tailor the PJC fiduciary duty question to fit several of the more commonly reported situations involving an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty. The PowerPoint of this presentation can be viewed here.

Subject Matter: Ethics & Professional Malpractice; Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

By | June 2nd, 2017|Comments Off on Jeff Levinger Co-Authors and Presents Speech on Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Read More

Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule

Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule

May 6, 2016 in Case Summaries

Assisted by trial counsel Ken Chaiken and appellate co-counsel Carl Cecere, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to grant mandamus relief compelling the trial court to set aside its order granting a new trial in a hotly-contested real estate dispute. Following a week-long trial, a Dallas County jury found that Levinger PC clients Douglas Hickok and VSDH Vaquero Venture did not defraud or breach their contract with the plaintiffs. The trial court, however, granted the plaintiffs a new trial, finding that Vaquero’s trial counsel had violated Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.08 by acting as both an advocate and a witness at trial. Invoking the recent Texas Supreme Court trilogy of cases allowing mandamus review of orders granting new trials, Hickok and Vaquero claimed that a purported violation of Rule 3.08 was not a legally appropriate basis for granting a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed, and ordered the trial court to render a take-nothing judgment on the jury’s verdict. In re VSDH Vaquero Venture, Ltd., No. 05-15-0513-CV, 2016 WL 2621073 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 6, 2016, pet. denied).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Ethics & Professional Malpractice, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

By | May 6th, 2016|Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule
Read More

SEARCH LEVINGER’S EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE