Defunct Dickstein Shapiro Sues Reed Smith, Ex-Client Estee Lauder Over Fees
The shuttered law firm says it's owed nearly $1.5 million for legal work it performed before its collapse.
March 13, 2018 at 06:20 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal

Shuttered law firm Dickstein Shapiro is suing Estee Lauder Inc. and Reed Smith over $1.42 million in legal fees, claiming they have failed to honor a prior payment contract and a fee-sharing arrangement executed before Dickstein collapsed.
Dickstein, represented by bankruptcy attorneys at Klestadt Winters Jureller Southard & Stevens, has been in liquidation since February 2016, following significant partner defections.
Dickstein had represented Estee Lauder in the cosmetic company's long-running lawsuit against OneBeacon Insurance Group in Manhattan Supreme Court. Under a 2012 payment agreement between Estee Lauder deputy general counsel George Martini and then-Dickstein insurance partner John Schryber, the law firm was to be paid a contingency fee from any settlement or judgment in the case, and any settlement proceeds were to be paid into a law firm escrow account.
In 2013, Schryber left Dickstein to join Reed Smith, and as a result, Estee Lauder transferred its file on the lawsuit to Reed Smith and engaged Reed Smith in place of Dickstein. At that point, Dickstein said, the firm and Reed Smith signed a fee sharing agreement, in which the firms agreed to calculate and pay fees due to Dickstein after the transfer of representation.
The underlying lawsuit resolved in December 2016, resulting in a $5.69 million settlement for Estee Lauder, according to Dickstein.
In a March 8 complaint filed in federal district court in Manhattan, Dickstein claims that under the terms of its payment agreement with Estee Lauder and the fee-sharing agreement, it is entitled to about $1.42 million, which it said consists of a $492,528 contingent fee and $928,221 in supplemental fees.
Dickstein's liquidation attorneys said the firm did not receive any notice of the settlement of the OneBeacon lawsuit, the payment of the settlement proceeds nor notice of the payment of legal fees to Reed Smith.
In June 2017, upon learning of the settlement and assuming that the settlement proceeds would be held in escrow before any disbursement, Dickstein wrote to Schryber, demanding payment. The next month, Reed Smith acknowledged that it collected and owed certain fees to Dickstein, which it calculated as $492,528 (the amount of the contingent fee), without saying when these fees were collected or how they were being held or applied, Dickstein said.
Then in October, Dickstein attorneys said they learned from Reed Smith that the settlement proceeds were apparently paid directly to Estee Lauder, rather than to Reed Smith's escrow account.
Dickstein said it “has made numerous demands” to Estee Lauder and Reed Smith to pay the outstanding balance, but they “have failed to make full payment.”
Dickstein is claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Estee Lauder, seeking $1.42 million from the past client. Meanwhile, in a breach of contract claim against Reed Smith, Dickstein said the firm must pay the amount of the contingency fee, $492,528.
A Reed Smith spokeswoman said the firm was “unable to comment.” Schryber, who is not a named defendant in the suit, declined to comment. Representatives for Estee Lauder did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
John Jureller Jr., a partner at Klestadt Winters representing Dickstein, said the defunct firm is nearing the end of the process of liquidation and winding up. He said the timing will depend on this action and a couple of additional pending matters, adding, “This is one of the assets we're attempting to collect for the estate.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute read
Federal Laws Also Preempt State's Swipe Fee Law on Out-of-State Banks, Judge Rules
3 minute read
Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
5 minute read
Former Director's Retaliation Suit Cleared to Move Forward Against Hospice Provider
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250