Posts tagged "Garrett"

Accutrax LLC v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &Dunner, LLP (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-058-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 2017 – 1617 BLS 1 ACCUTRAX LLC vs. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS In this legal malpractice action the defendant law firm moves to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff, Accutrax LLC, was not the firm’s client. There is no question, however, that the law firm was engaged to perform the legal services described in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). There is also no question that the FAC adequately pleads a claim for professional malpractice and the other related claims, assuming that the plaintiff is the client of Finnegan. Thus, the issue presented is whether the sole plaintiff, Accutrax LLC, has standing as a client to assert the claims. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the First Amended Complaint (FAC), and the documents attached to the FAC as exhibits. Three individuals acted as partners, or joint venturers, to patent and market a razor utility knife. They agreed to form a Delaware LLC to pursue the project. One partner, Kildevaeld agreed 1 to assign his ownership and patent rights to the LLC in exchange for contributions by the other two partners, Billado and Cumings, to commercialize and market the knife. The three partners went to defendant, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Finnegan) to obtain legal counsel for their enterprise. The partners informed Finnegan that they intended to form a Delaware LLC with the name “Contractor Trusted, LLC.” They informed Finnegan that the LLC had not yet been formed. Nevertheless, Finnegan prepared an engagement letter for the legal representation, designating the client as “Contractor Trusted, LLC.” The engagement letter, dated March 4, 2013, was signed by Billado on behalf of Contractor Trusted, LLC. The engagement letter made it clear that Finnegan’s client was Contractor Trusted, LLC and not any officer, director, shareholder or employee of the LLC. The engagement letter attached an invoice for $ 5,000. On March 6, 2013, the invoice was paid by a check from Billado. The partners intended to market the knife under the name Accutrax. When they finally incorporated the anticipated LLC, they decided to name the corporation Accutrax LLC, instead of Contractor Trusted, LLC. Accutrax LLC was formed on June 6, 2013. No entity by the name of Contractor Trusted, LLC was ever formed. All three partners became members of Accutrax LLC. “Finnegan had actual as well as constructive knowledge that Kildevaeld, Billado, and Cumings used the name Accutrax LLC instead of Contractor Trusted, LLC for their LLC.” FAC ¶ 35. Finnegan proceeded to perform legal services. Billado provided to Finnegan a prior art search result that he had from another attorney. […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 6, 2018 at 2:45 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-202-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11800   CHRIS E. MALING  vs.  FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP, & others.[1]       Suffolk.     September 8, 2015. – December 23, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Patent.  Conflict of Interest.  Attorney at Law, Conflict of interest, Attorney-client relationship, Representation of differing interests.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 25, 2013.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Janet L. Sanders, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Thomas M. Bond for the plaintiff. Erin K. Higgins (Christopher K. Sweeney with her) for the defendants. Paul A. Stewart, of California, & Sara E. Hirshon, for Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Heather B. Repicky & Lauren E. Ingegneri, for Boston Patent Law Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     CORDY, J.  In this case we consider whether an actionable conflict of interest arises under Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7, as appearing in 471 Mass. 1335 (2015), when attorneys in different offices of the same law firm simultaneously represent business competitors in prosecuting patents on similar inventions, without informing them or obtaining their consent to the simultaneous representation.[2] The plaintiff, Chris E. Maling, engaged the defendant law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Finnegan), including the three individual attorneys named in this suit, to represent him in connection with the prosecution of patents for Maling’s inventions for a new screwless eyeglass. After obtaining his patents, Maling learned that Finnegan had been simultaneously representing another client that competed with Maling in the screwless eyeglass market.  Maling then commenced this action, alleging harm under various legal theories resulting from Finnegan’s failure to disclose the alleged conflict of interest.  A judge in the Superior Court dismissed Maling’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974).  Maling appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.  We conclude that the simultaneous representation by a law firm in the prosecution of patents for two clients competing in the same technology area for similar inventions is not a per se violation of Mass. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7.  We further conclude that based on the facts […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 23, 2015 at 6:56 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Garrett (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-190-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11852   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RAHEEM B. GARRETT.       Berkshire.     September 8, 2015. – November 25, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Robbery.  Firearms.  Evidence, Firearm, Exculpatory.  Practice, Criminal, Indictment, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Lesser included offense.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 16, 2011.   The cases were tried before John A. Agostini, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Michael J. Hickson for the defendant. John P. Bossé, Special Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     DUFFLY, J.  The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury on three indictments charging armed robbery with a firearm while masked, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 17, the armed robbery statute.[1]  To prove that the defendant was armed with a “firearm,” the Commonwealth relied on evidence that the defendant used a BB gun to perpetrate each of the robberies.  The defendant appealed from his convictions, and we allowed the Commonwealth’s petition for direct appellate review.  The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because a BB gun is not a “firearm” within the meaning of the armed robbery statute.  The defendant maintains also that the indictments were facially invalid, certain errors in the jury instructions require reversal, and his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in several respects. Because we conclude that a BB gun does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a “firearm” within the meaning of G. L. c. 265, § 17, the defendant’s convictions of armed robbery by means of a firearm cannot stand.  Accordingly, those convictions must be vacated, and the matter remanded to the Superior Court for entry of judgments of guilt on the lesser included offense of unarmed robbery. Background.  We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving certain facts for later discussion of individual issues.  In 2011, the defendant was experiencing financial difficulties after he and his then live-in girl friend, Laura Methe, lost their jobs and were unable to find new employment.  In an effort to improve their financial circumstances, the defendant and Methe robbed stores in the city of Pittsfield.  To commit the robberies, the defendant used a BB gun that he and Methe had purchased for that purpose at a […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 25, 2015 at 9:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,