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

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.

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.