Malpractice Suit Against Drinker Biddle Reinstated
A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a judge was too quick to dismiss a malpractice suit against Drinker Biddle. The firm is accused of failing to find an expert witness that supported its client’s claim against a pollution cleanup company.
The court said there is enough evidence to take the former client’s suit to trial, the New Jersey Law Journal reports. The client, Verdure Asset Corp., had hired Drinker Biddle to take over a lawsuit against a company accused of botching the removal of oil tanks and damaging company property, including a truck repair building.
The expert Drinker Biddle hired was supposed to testify about the costs of repairing the building, but the expert instead discussed the replacement cost, the Law Journal story says. After the judge indicated he wouldn’t allow the evidence, Verdure settled in what it contends was a bad deal.
Drinker Biddle and its lawyer who handled the case, Christine Baker, contend there was not enough evidence to support a different expert opinion and Verdure wasn’t damaged by the settlement. The trial judge had agreed, saying Baker did the best she could after being hired on the eve of trial. He also awarded the firm $240,000 on its counterclaim for unpaid attorney fees.
But the appeals court noted in its opinion (PDF) that Verdure has since found experts who were willing to estimate the repair costs. That is enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact that should be decided at trial, the court said.
