If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries

Professional Malpractice & Ethics
March 26, 2021

Table of Contents

UFT Commercial Finance, LLC v. Fisher

Labor & Employment Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Constitutional Problems With the Kentucky Proposal (Supported by Mitch McConnell) to Change the Way U.S. Senate Vacancies Are Filled

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

verdict post

In this second of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Kentucky proposal to change the way U.S. Senate vacancies are filled. Dean Amar argues that the Seventeenth Amendment precludes such a proposal, which would allow the state legislature to substantively constrain the governor’s choices in making a temporary appointment.

Read More

Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinions

UFT Commercial Finance, LLC v. Fisher

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 20-2012

Opinion Date: March 23, 2021

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

Plaintiffs, a start‐up company and its founder (Marlowe), sued the company’s former chief legal officer, Fisher, to recover losses from an arbitration award that held them liable for years of unpaid wages owed to Fisher himself. The award comprised unpaid wages and statutory penalties totaling $864,976 and an additional $366,460 because Fisher did not receive written notice of his contract nonrenewal. Plaintiffs alleged that Fisher advised them to enter into what they now say was an illegal agreement to defer Fisher’s compensation until the company was able to secure more funding. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Even if Marlowe was Fisher’s client regarding her own compensation agreement and a decision not to purchase directors and officers insurance, the plaintiffs failed to plead any plausible malpractice claims arising from those matters. Plaintiffs did not allege that they would have opted against using the compensation agreements had Fisher fully advised them. The company violated the Illinois Wage Act by failing to pay Fisher as agreed. The agreement did not aggravate or add to those violations; it made sense as an interim measure to forestall litigation by acknowledging the obligation and committing the company to one way to satisfy it.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.

Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043