The National Law Journal with DC News from Legal Times
  • This Site
  • Law.com Network
  • Legal Web

30 Day Free Trial

National News
Washington News
RSS

NLJ Home > News > Irell & Manella settles $150M claim alleging malpractice

  • deliciousdel.icio.us
  • digg Digg
  • redditReddit
  • facebookFacebook
  • googleGoogle Bookmarks
  • newsvineNewsvine
  • linkedinLinkedIn
  • mixxMixx
  • stumbleuponStumbleupon
  • twitterTwitter
  • font size: increase font decrease font
  • Print
  • Share
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Reprints & Permissions

Irell & Manella settles $150M claim alleging malpractice

Amanda Bronstad / Staff reporter

February 12, 2009


LOS ANGELES – Irell & Manella has settled a $150 million legal malpractice lawsuit with one of its largest clients, Charter Communications Inc., according to a Feb. 10 filing in the case.

The settlement was reached following two months of mediation, according to court documents. Charter Communications Inc. v. Irell & Manella LLP, No. 07-cv-00402 (C.D. Calif.). No details of the settlement, including the dollar amount, were provided.

Irell, based in Los Angeles, had represented Charter and its chairman, Paul Allen, while both were looking to acquire cable systems to build a nationwide cable television company. In 2000, while working on an acquisition dubbed "the Bresnan Transaction," an unnamed Irell associate deleted two important paragraphs of the contract, giving Allen an unintended type of stock. No one noticed the mistake until 2002, after which Charter was forced to negotiate with Allen over millions of dollars to rectify the deal.

Charter then sued Irell for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and other claims.

In October, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford, of the Central District of California, refused to grant Irell's motion to dismiss the suit. The firm had argued that it could not mount a full defense without revealing privileged information relating to Allen, who is not a party to the suit. Guilford, while acknowledging California's case law stating law firms could dismiss claims that forced them to reveal information that is privileged under an attorney-client relationship, was not convinced that Irell could not mount a defense without certain accommodations, such as sealing and protective orders.

Charter's attorney, Glen E. Summers, a partner in the Denver office of Chicago's Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, confirmed that the parties had settled but declined to give details.

"As you know, this was a very troubling case for Irell, and I'm sure they're pleased to have it behind them," he said.

Irell's attorney, Paul G. Gaffney, a partner at Washington's Williams & Connolly, declined to comment.



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

Most Popular Headlines

  1. 'Legal armada' sets sail against Toyota
  2. Plaintiffs' firms mount mass attack on Toyota
    •         
      • Subscription Required
  3. New public law school at U. Mass. Dartmouth approved
  4. D.C. lawyer will defend Chicago's gun law before Supreme Court
  5. Winning the battle for lateral partners
    •         
      • Subscription Required
  6. Spotlight on Laterals
  7. CSX chases plaintiff firm over asbestos
    •         
      • Subscription Required
  8. Controversy deepens over corporate rights, Citizens United
  9. Chicago market for laterals picking up
  10. Former Lehman Bros. top lawyer takes GC slot at AIG

Sign Up for Free Daily Newsletters Sign Up for Free Daily Newsletters

MORE NEWS HEADLINES

  • Plaintiffs' firms mount mass attack on Toyota

More News

  • Congress may address hydraulic fracturing this year

More In Focus

  • The collateral order doctrine after 'Mohawk'

More Columns

  • Judge faces her ex's misconduct allegations

More Washington News

Advertisement

 
terms & conditions | privacy | advertise | about NLJ.com | contact us | subscribe

About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Reprints 
Close [ X ]