DECISION/ORDER On May 30, 2019, as per an order of the undersigned dated February 8, 2019, a hearing on attorneys’ fees was held on the matter herein. In its underlying Order to Show Cause, movant Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C. (“Spektor”) sought a hearing to determine the amount and value of a lien against the above-captioned matter brought by Spektor on behalf of plaintiff, and resolved by Rubin & Licatesi, P.C. (“Rubin”). Rubin contended that plaintiff’s termination of Spektor’s legal services was “for cause,” and that Spektor is therefore not entitled to any fee.Both sides appeared for the hearing, with David Henderson, Esq. appearing for movant Spektor, and Anthony Licatesi, Esq. appearing for Rubin & Licatesi, P.C. Plaintiff Moses Sawh, Jr., managing attorney Jennifer Ahlfeld, Esq. (“Ahfeld”) testified for Rubin. Spektor presented no witnesses.Plaintiff Moses Sawh, Jr. (“Sawh”) testified that Spektor represented him for one and a half (1½) years after he was involved in a January 2017 car accident. He said despite making about six (6) efforts to see an attorney, he never met or spoke to one, only a paralegal. He acknowledged that Spektor filed a summons and complaint to commence the lawsuit. Sawh said that the paralegal at Spektor persuaded him to have a second surgery. He had two surgical procedures: on his cervical and lumbar spines respectively. He said that the firm, through the paralegal, advised him to ignore the medical bills that arose as a consequence of his surgeries and other medical treatment from the accident; his understanding was that Spektor would ultimately ensure the bills were paid. However, the bills were not paid; instead, they went into collections, and there was a steep decline in his credit rating. He testified that he sought out another firm, as he was unhappy with the services rendered at Spektor.Ahlfeld testified that Sawh’s unpaid medical bills were covered by no-fault, and were paid accordingly after Rubin took the case. She also testified that the defendant’s insurance company made an offer of $60,000 to settle the matter, which Rubin rejected. Ultimately, the insurance company tendered the policy amount of $100,000, thereby settling the case.In the hearing on the within matter, there was no testimony to counter Sawh’s contention that during the 1½ years Spektor represented him, he never saw or spoke to an attorney, despite his efforts, and that he only spoke to a paralegal — including receiving advice that he have a second surgery. Most disturbing was Sawh’s unrebutted testimony that he was advised by the paralegal not to pay medical bills that he was receiving for the surgical procedures and other treatment resulting from the car accident. The unpaid bills went into collections, and severely impacted his credit rating. Rubin’s managing attorney Ahfeld testified unequivocally that those bills should have been, and were ultimately satisfied by no-fault insurance. Additionally, the case was settled shortly after Rubin took the case.Based on the undisputed testimony, this Court finds that Spektor’s improper handling of this matter was the basis of a termination for cause. “An attorney may be discharged for cause where he or she has engaged in misconduct, has failed to prosecute the client’s case diligently, or has otherwise improperly handled the client’s case or committed malpractice (Coccia v. Liotti, 70 AD3d 747 at 757 [2010], citing Costello v. Kiaer, 278 AD2d 50 [2000] and Hawkins v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 138 Ad2d 572 [1988]). Questions on cross-examination by Spektor’s attorney having to do with Spektor’s filing of the lawsuit, obtaining medical records, having Sawh sign HIPAA authorizations, prepare verified bill of particulars, and sending a settlement package were separate from the improper handling of the case — particularly the failure to ensure that his medical bills were paid by no-fault insurance. It would appear to this Court that Sawh’s inability to ever consult with an attorney to give him proper advice on that matter led to the bills going into collections, and negatively impacting his credit rating. A client should not be placed in a worse position as a consequence of following the legal advice that an attorney or law firm provides, than before the attorney or firm was retained.“Where the discharge is for cause, the attorney has no right to compensation, and may not assert a retaining lien on the client’s file” (Coccia at 757, citing Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38 [1990]; Orendick v. Chiodo, 272 AD2d 901 [2000]; Matter of Leopold, 244 AD2d 411 [1997]). As a consequence of this Court’s finding that Spektor improperly handled the instant matter — notwithstanding having filed the summons and complaint — that firm is not entitled to any fee for legal services.Accordingly, Spektor’s Order to Show Cause is denied in its entirety.The foregoing constitutes and decision and order of the Court.Dated: July 2, 2019
