Monday, April 11, 2011

Bingham sues Frank McCourt.

---
Anticipating a possible lawsuit against it for its role in the creation and modification of the Marital Property Agreement at issue in the McCourt divorce, the law firm Bingham McCutchen filed its own lawsuit Monday in Massachusetts. The action, which seeks a court declaration that Bingham McCutchen did not cause Frank's December loss in Los Angeles County Superior Court, signals the possible breakdown of communication between the firm and its former client. The contention at the core of the lawsuit reads:
Despite Mr. McCourt's repeated, public assertions of damage due to Bingham's purported conduct, any injury, loss, or expense he has sustained or will sustain were caused not by Bingham's conduct, but by his own widely-publicized financial problems, huge withdrawals of cash from the Dodgers, and strained relations with Major League Baseball. None of this is attributable to Bingham's work. . . . The inexorable conclusion . . . is that is that Bingham's MPA-related actions caused Mr. McCourt no loss with respect to his ownership of the Dodgers.
Bingham's Complaint also notes that Frank has refused to pay the full amounts due Bingham in a form of protest of Bingham's allegedly-insufficient service.

Bingham McCutchen offered a statement, excerpted in part:
Bingham McCutchen LLP, a Boston-based international law firm, today filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts seeking a declaration that the services Bingham provided to Frank McCourt, the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, relating to a 2004 marital property agreement between him and Jamie McCourt fully met Bingham's obligations to its clients and that Bingham's work caused Mr. McCourt no loss.

The marital property agreement has been a subject of attention in the couple's long-running divorce proceeding in Los Angeles, and Bingham has been the target of allegations by the McCourts and their counsel critical of Bingham’s work on the MPA.  Bingham commenced its court action today seeking a declaration that those allegations are without merit.

“We are confident that when the evidence has been fully developed, it will become clear to everyone that Bingham has fulfilled its professional obligations,” said John Villa of Williams & Connolly LLP, representing Bingham. “The lawsuit filed today is the first step in Bingham's efforts to do so.”
Representatives for Frank McCourt did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

EDIT: A spokesman for Frank McCourt has released the statement below:
Bingham McCutchen drafted an agreement the Court found did not comply with applicable California law and was invalid because of the conduct of the Bingham firm’s lawyers.  Mr. McCourt is disappointed that the Bingham firm is unwilling to accept responsibility for its actions and is instead now trying to defend conduct that is indefensible.
It has been openly speculated that the law firm was once a party to settlement discussions between Frank and Jamie McCourt. Indeed, as baseball tightens its grip on Frank McCourt's possible financing options, a cash payment from Bingham in exchange for Frank and Jamie's promise not to sue could have represented a lifeline Commissioner Selig could not block.

More as this develops.
---

9 comments:

  1. "a cash payment from Bingham in exchange for Frank and Jamie's promise not to sue could have represented a lifeline Commissioner Selig could not block".

    Josh, I do not understand this. Would you mind extrapolating for me. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like an insurance policy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...as baseball tightens its grip on Frank McCourt's possible financing options, a cash payment from Bingham in exchange for Frank and Jamie's promise not to sue could have represented a lifeline Commissioner Selig could not block."


    Tony -- Why don't you read the whole sentence? Selig has no power to stop Frank from settling with his lawyers, but Selig can prevent the Dodgers from making deal with Fox.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BM, Little Little Poop. What a name for a law firm. Any firm that is unable to draft documents in a multidisciplinary manner should be sued for malpractice. BM should have drafted documents that complied with Federal, Mass. and Calif Estate Planning and Mass. and Calif. family law. BM laid a big one and their malpractice carrier should bring out its check book. Maybe some of these lawyers previously worked for Arthur Anderson!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a moron! Arther Andersen (note spelling) was an accounting firm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nice Positng and is really very informative. Looking forward for your next post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have been here analysis for about Bingham sues Frank McCourt an hour. I am a newbie and your achievement is very much an inspiration for me

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a suit for declaratory judgment, which for all practical purposes means that they sued McCourt because it was obvious that he was going to sue them, and they wanted to get the drop on him.

    ReplyDelete