Baker Botts responsible for $40m damages to client, but claim barred by limitations

Ethics

I just read a story off law.com (subscription required) that that was the verdict in the conflict-of-interest claim brought against my old firm by a former client.  From what I’ve read, a central issue in the appeal will be whether the breach of fiduciary duty claim was properly tossed out by the trial judge under an arcane rule called the “anti-fracturing rule,” that I won’t bore you with. If that was wrong, then the claim was timely.  Stay tuned…

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

Hide comments

One thought on “Baker Botts responsible for $40m damages to client, but claim barred by limitations”

  1. 1

    This story frightens me a bit, as a prosecutor.

    The charge was that they represented another company, that “got the patents they should have gotten,” and that as a result the other company got the contracts they should have gotten. It’s incredibly speculative, and yet, the jury awarded $40M.

    And this is why malpractice insurance for IP is so expensive.

Comments are closed.