from http://moversmakers.org/2016/01/09/1601/?shared=email&msg=fail
January 09 2016....interesting.
My mother passed June 2016 and EVERYTHING turned to crap after my mother passed.
You think my mother, who had to leave her beautiful sister in Auschwitz when my mother had the chance to escape....was unaffected by that and the other members of her family who died.??
My mother was RIPE for the pickings of her money....and my contested share was diverted through IMO unethical manipulative malpractice IMO.... to the Greater Cincinnati Foundation.
My mother told me of her hopes for me and my son....one of the people on this page... plus.... destroyed those hopes...imo.
There seems to be a pattern of this.
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/04/lawyer-threatens-stupid-lawsuit-over-stupid-rules-interpretation-for-stupid-entry-into-stupid-contest-2687924.html
Columbus, OH. Jonathan Zell simply wanted to illustrate a novel legal argument that his adversaries had made in a malpractice case Zell had filed on behalf of his mother against the Ohio-based law firm of Frost Brown Todd. (Eileen Zell v. Frost Brown Todd LLC, et al.. Case No. 2:13-cv-0458, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.) So Zell entered the American Bar Assn’s (ABA’s) “Peeps in Law 2014” contest by submitting a miniature scene (called a “diorama”) made out of Peeps® (the animal-shaped marshmallow candies) depicting this argument.
In response, according to Zell, the national lawyers group
“has banned my diorama simply because it involves the touchy subject
(that is, touchy to lawyers) of legal malpractice.” So Zell now
plans to sue the ABA, claiming that, “to avoid embarrassing lawyers,”
the ABA is engaging in “a blatant kind of self-interested political
censorship.”
In an e-mail to Zell, an ABA official claimed that Zell’s diorama was not accepted because it was submitted by someone “personally involved” in the legal case being depicted. But, because the contest deadline had already passed, it was now too late for anyone else to submit this diorama instead of Zell.
Zell wrote back to the ABA, pointing out that the contest rules say nothing about “involved persons.” Also, the ABA had already accepted and posted on its website similar dioramas from other “involved persons.” But Zell received no response.
Zell’s diorama showed six lawyers sitting in a law firm’s office, each of whom was holding up a sign stating “Not me.” This was intended to depict the six Frost Brown Todd lawyers whom Zell’s mother has sued for legal malpractice. As was explained in a caption accompanying the diorama, the statute of limitations on legal malpractice does not begin to run until after the client’s legal representation in the matter in question has ended. This is designed to give the malpracticing lawyer an opportunity to correct his or her mistake.
However, Frost Brown Todd recently filed a motion in court arguing that, because its six lawyers had worked on Zell’s mother’s case “successively,” the statute of limitations should be computed separately “for each particular attorney.” If so, then Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice would have already expired on the first five lawyers’ mistakes. Since the alleged harm had already occurred before the sixth lawyer took over the case, Frost Brown Todd then claimed that none of its lawyers or even the firm itself has any liability.
Zell contends that, if Frost Brown Todd’s “novel legal argument” is accepted by the court, it would “provid[e] a roadmap for Ohio’s attorneys on how to defeat claims for legal malpractice committed during trial litigation.” Calling it the “Hot Potato” strategy, Zell described this roadmap as follows:
So, although illustrated by a piece of artwork composed of marshmallow candies, Zell’s mother’s case has the potential to be a landmark legal ruling. On the other hand, Zell’s planned lawsuit against the ABA seems like a lot of peeping about nothing.
The contest entries can be viewed at http://www.abajournal.com/
ATTACHMENTS:
Photo of Zell’s Diorama
Close-up Photo of a Portion of Zell’s Diorama
The Caption to Zell’s Diorama
My mother told me of her hopes for me and my son....one of the people on this page... plus.... destroyed those hopes...imo.
There seems to be a pattern of this.
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/04/lawyer-threatens-stupid-lawsuit-over-stupid-rules-interpretation-for-stupid-entry-into-stupid-contest-2687924.html
Columbus, OH. Jonathan Zell simply wanted to illustrate a novel legal argument that his adversaries had made in a malpractice case Zell had filed on behalf of his mother against the Ohio-based law firm of Frost Brown Todd. (Eileen Zell v. Frost Brown Todd LLC, et al.. Case No. 2:13-cv-0458, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.) So Zell entered the American Bar Assn’s (ABA’s) “Peeps in Law 2014” contest by submitting a miniature scene (called a “diorama”) made out of Peeps® (the animal-shaped marshmallow candies) depicting this argument.
In an e-mail to Zell, an ABA official claimed that Zell’s diorama was not accepted because it was submitted by someone “personally involved” in the legal case being depicted. But, because the contest deadline had already passed, it was now too late for anyone else to submit this diorama instead of Zell.
Zell wrote back to the ABA, pointing out that the contest rules say nothing about “involved persons.” Also, the ABA had already accepted and posted on its website similar dioramas from other “involved persons.” But Zell received no response.
Zell’s diorama showed six lawyers sitting in a law firm’s office, each of whom was holding up a sign stating “Not me.” This was intended to depict the six Frost Brown Todd lawyers whom Zell’s mother has sued for legal malpractice. As was explained in a caption accompanying the diorama, the statute of limitations on legal malpractice does not begin to run until after the client’s legal representation in the matter in question has ended. This is designed to give the malpracticing lawyer an opportunity to correct his or her mistake.
However, Frost Brown Todd recently filed a motion in court arguing that, because its six lawyers had worked on Zell’s mother’s case “successively,” the statute of limitations should be computed separately “for each particular attorney.” If so, then Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice would have already expired on the first five lawyers’ mistakes. Since the alleged harm had already occurred before the sixth lawyer took over the case, Frost Brown Todd then claimed that none of its lawyers or even the firm itself has any liability.
Zell contends that, if Frost Brown Todd’s “novel legal argument” is accepted by the court, it would “provid[e] a roadmap for Ohio’s attorneys on how to defeat claims for legal malpractice committed during trial litigation.” Calling it the “Hot Potato” strategy, Zell described this roadmap as follows:
When one of the firm’s attorneys commits malpractice, reassign the case to another attorney. If the second attorney also commits malpractice,
then reassign the case to a third attorney, and so on. Then have the
final (non-malpracticing) attorney continue to represent the client on
appeal in the same matter until the statutes of limitations on the
previous attorneys’ legal malpractice expire.
The caption to
Zell’s diorama concluded that a court decision sanctioning the “Hot
Potato” strategy would be so unfair to clients that it might “provide
the necessary impetus to get Ohio’s legislature to extend what is now
the shortest statute of limitations on legal malpractice in the nation.”So, although illustrated by a piece of artwork composed of marshmallow candies, Zell’s mother’s case has the potential to be a landmark legal ruling. On the other hand, Zell’s planned lawsuit against the ABA seems like a lot of peeping about nothing.
The contest entries can be viewed at http://www.abajournal.com/
ATTACHMENTS:
Photo of Zell’s Diorama
Close-up Photo of a Portion of Zell’s Diorama
The Caption to Zell’s Diorama
Calling it the “Hot Potato” strategy, Zell described this roadmap as follows:
When one of the firm’s attorneys commits malpractice, reassign the case to another attorney. If the second attorney also commits malpractice,
then reassign the case to a third attorney, and so on. Then have the
final (non-malpracticing) attorney continue to represent the client on
appeal in the same matter until the statutes of limitations on the
previous attorneys’ legal malpractice expire."
The writer Jonathan Zell Esq is an attorney.
I am not an attorney.
I am not stating these folks Zell indicates may have practiced malpractice are guilty of MALPRACTICE....I am however thinking that Jonathan Zell Esq just might have something too correct for the ABA to stomach.
No comments:
Post a Comment