Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Shuttered FrontPoint hedge funds sue Libor banks for $250 mln fraud  read more »

UBS, powerful amici urge 2nd Circuit not to meddle with Morrison  read more »

Ruling for AIG, Triaxx could delay May 30 trial in BofA put-back deal  read more »

Marketing Popup

Planning to sue Nancy Grace? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

7/28/2011 COMMENTS (0)

 

Has there ever been a more perfect pairing of lawyer and client than Orin Snyder and Nancy Grace? The telegenic take-no-prisoners Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner is defending the telegenic take-no-prisoners host of the syndicated legal show Swift Justice with Nancy Grace in a $15 million contract dispute with Grace's onetime friend and producer Patricia Caruso. And if anyone doubted that Snyder is willing to follow through on threats of dire consequences for lawyers who file purportedly frivolous claims against his clients-are you listening, DLA Piper?-the fast-moving Grace case should put those questions to rest.

Caruso and her lawyers at Clarick Gueron Reisbaum claim that Grace made an oral promise to develop a legal show with Caruso, then reneged on the promise when she made the deal to host Swift Justice. They filed a breach of contract suit against Grace in New York state supreme court in March. Snyder, who has previously represented high-profile women such as Jessica Seinfeld, Barbara Walters, and Elizabeth Hasselbeck, immediately had the case removed to Manhattan federal court. According to the motion to dismiss he filed on May 6, Caruso's claims aren't worth the paper her oral agreement isn't printed on. "The claims asserted in this case are so lacking in merit that they could not have been filed in good faith," Snyder wrote, in a not-so-veiled warning to Caruso's counsel.

In case Clarick Gueron refused to take the hint and slink away, Snyder drafted a Rule 11 sanctions motion and sent it to Caruso's lawyers, along with a letter advising the firm that he would file the sanctions motion if Caruso refused to drop claims against Grace. She didn't and he did. In a June 22 Rule 11 sanctions motion, Snyder said that Judge Shira Scheindlin, who is presiding over the case, had already informed Caruso's counsel that she was likely to dismiss the case because the purported oral agreement was just an unenforceable "agreement to agree," and that opposition to Grace dismissal motion seemed like a waste of her time.

"It is 'patently clear' that the complaint in this case 'has absolutely no chance of success,'" Snyder wrote. "Sanctions are therefore warranted against Caruso and her counsel for filing a frivolous complaint, for refusing to withdraw that complaint, and for advocating the claims in that complaint before this Court, both at the initial pretrial conference and in opposing Grace's motion to dismiss."

Caruso counsel Gregory Clarick refused to back down. In a July 13 response to Snyder's motion, Clarick accused Snyder of belligerence, bullying, and a "stubborn refusal to acknowledge the substance of [Caruso's] arguments, which are well supported by controlling law," the brief says. "Rather than own up to her distortion of the complaint and engage in an honest dispute about the application of the law, Grace just pounded the table harder, at most offering new rationalizations for misguided opening arguments that artificially distort the complaint's allegations."

Clarick disclosed that "in an abundance of caution," his firm had "sought advice from outside counsel" after Snyder filed the sanctions motion. He didn't name the outside lawyer but described him or her as a former Manhattan federal prosecutor who is now "a current partner at an esteemed New York City law firm." That lawyer, Clarick said, concluded that Caruso's claims had a reasonable basis in law.

On Wednesday, Snyder fired off a response that specifically addressed this anonymous lawyer's endorsement of Caruso's suit. "It is telling that this supposedly authoritative 'partner at a prestigious New York City law firm' chose not to submit a sworn affidavit to vouch for the reasonableness of Caruso's claims," he wrote. "Absent such a submission, the court should categorically disregard this anonymous hearsay. Indeed, the fact that Caruso and her counsel see the need to seek refuge in the anonymous hearsay of another firm's lawyer speaks for itself."

Snyder declined to comment on the sanctions fight. Clarick told me his firm filed Caruso's case in good faith. "We think the motion for sanctions is absolutely inappropriate and meritless," he said.

I usually hate to resort to TV talk, but in this instance it seems justified: Stay tuned.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters