Posts tagged "1111414"

Minkina v. Frankl, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-114-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   13-P-1480                                       Appeals Court   NATALY MINKINA  vs.  LAURIE A. FRANKL & others.[1] No. 13-P-1480. Suffolk.     May 12, 2014. – September 15, 2014.   Present:  Cypher, Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ.   Attorney at Law, Malpractice, Withdrawal.  Anti-Discrimination Law, Arbitration, Employment.  Arbitration.  Practice, Civil, Notice of appeal, Amendment of complaint, Costs.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 11, 2009.   A motion to strike expert testimony was heard by Edward P. Leibensperger, J.; a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was considered by Janet L. Sanders, J.; and the case was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J., on a motion for summary judgment.     Richard L. Neumeier for the plaintiff. Kevin G. Powers (Robert S. Mantell with him) for the defendants.   KAFKER, J.  Nataly Minkina contends that her former counsel, Laurie A. Frankl, Jonathan J. Margolis, and Rodgers, Powers and Schwartz, LLP (hereinafter, collectively, RPS), committed legal malpractice during their representation of her in an employment discrimination action.  More particularly, she claims that RPS mishandled its opposition to a motion to compel arbitration by failing to recognize that the reasoning in a then-controlling decision of this court, Mugnano-Bornstein v. Crowell, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 347 (1997) (Mugnano-Bornstein), would be rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court in a later decision, Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Center, Inc., 454 Mass. 390 (2009) (Warfield).  Minkina also contends that RPS breached its fiduciary duty to her when it withdrew from her representation after she criticized the performance of Frankl and other lawyers in the firm and accused at least Frankl of unprofessional conduct.  In addition, Minkina contends that the judge abused his discretion in denying her second motion to amend her complaint.  For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the Superior Court judge rejecting the malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims and allowing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  We also conclude that the denial of the second motion to amend the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. Background.  In 2002, the plaintiff, Nataly Minkina, was hired as a physician by the Affiliate Physicians Group of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (APG).  At that time, she executed an employment agreement that contained an arbitration clause.  The clause provided: “In the event that any dispute arising out of or relating […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 15, 2014 at 5:17 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,