Baumeister & Samuels Defeats Most Claims in Legal Malpractice Suit—But 1 Survives

A federal judge in Newark, New Jersey, has dismissed multiple counts in a malpractice suit against a law firm hired to recover damages for relatives of a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks.

U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez granted the motion by Baumeister & Samuels to dismiss four counts from a six-count complaint. Those counts—for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing—were too duplicative of the fifth count, for legal malpractice, Vazquez said.

But the judge declined Baumeister & Samuels’ bid to dismiss the sixth count, for negligent misrepresentation.

U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey John Michael Vazquez. Courtesy photo

Vazquez found counts one through four are too similar to the malpractice claim, because they all are based on the same facts and seek the same relief.

The malpractice claim says Baumeister & Samuels failed to obtain judgments against Iran, Sudan and the Taliban, and did not properly advocate for the plaintiffs in connection with the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The same is true of plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, Vazquez found.

But count six, which alleges negligent misrepresentation, relies on different factual allegations than the malpractice claim, so Baumeister & Samuels’ motion to dismiss that count was denied, Vazquez said. The negligent misrepresentation claim relies on allegations that the defendant made false statements to the plaintiffs, he said.

The judge also found multiple shortcomings in the malpractice claim and directed the plaintiffs to replead. The plaintiffs said Baumeister & Samuels breached its duty to them by failing to pursue and obtain certain judgments and failing to advocate for them with respect to the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

The malpractice claim also said that if Baumeister & Samuels had obtained a final judgment against Sudan, the U.S. government would have made a different foreign policy decision in its negotiations with Sudan, which would have allowed the plaintiffs to recover. But plaintiffs have not shown that Sudan was responsible for the Sept, 11, 2001, attacks, a necessary prerequisite for recovering from Sudan, Vazquez said. But the judge added that he could not conclude that, had Baumeister & Samuels done things differently, the outcome would have been different.

The judge also threw out the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages and attorney fees.

The plaintiffs sought punitive damages with respect to the breach of fiduciary claim, but they “have not plausibly pled such entitlement,” Vazquez wrote. And the judge struck the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys fees because a choice-of-law analysis showed that New York law, which requires parties to pay their own legal fees, applies under the circumstances.

Katherine Maher and her sons, Daniel R. Maher and Joseph Maher, brought the malpractice suit in April. They are the survivors of Daniel L. Maher, a vice president at March & McClennan in the World Trade Center, who died in the terrorist attack.

Katherine Maher retained Baumeister & Samuels to prosecute claims for damages arising out of her husband’s death. The plaintiffs alleged that the firm and attorneys Michel Baumeister and Dorothea Capone were expected to “advocate for plaintiffs’ rights, and properly protect and advance plaintiffs’ interests, whether through litigation, political lobbying, or with respect to any funds set up to help recovering 9/11 families,” Vazquez wrote.

Jonathan Vuotto of McAndrew Vuotto in Morristown, representing the Maher family in the malpractice case, said the court’s aggressive trimming of the counts in his complaint was “a positive decision,” because the negligent misrepresentation claim will be allowed to proceed.

Vuotto said that he was disappointed that the judge applied New York law instead of New Jersey law to the case.

“Beyond that, I think the case is going to move forward now, and I’m happy with that,” Vuotto said.

The lawyers for Baumeister & Samuels, Baumeister and Capone, Matthew Leis of Clausen Miller in Florham Park, New Jersey, and Thomas Curtin and Joseph LaSala of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Morristown, New Jersey, did not respond to requests for comment.