Parsing the Morse v. Rothstein Lawsuit

Rothstein Revised Malpractice Complaint



Finally amid all the crazy Rothstein pleadings we have what appears to be a straightforward professional malpractice suit.



There are no blockbuster allegations here, no inflammatory rhetoric, just a simple suit sounding in malpractice, negligent supervision, and breach of fiduciary duty.



The Morses claim that Rothstein and former RRA partners Stuart Rosenfelt, Russ Adler, Howard Kusnick, Steve Osber, and Les Stracher all screwed up in various ways in their handling and/or supervision of four separate Morse matters.



The first one was an interior designer services matter that appears to be unrelated to the forged Judge Marra order.



According to the complaint, Steve Osber had day-to-day responsibility for this file:

Plaintiffs are informed and reasonably believe that counsel representing them in the Jan Jones case have failed to meaningfully communicate with Morse, failed to advise them of scheduled depositions, negotiated a purported settlement on behalf of Plaintiffs without their knowledge and consent, and have consented to sanction orders arising from Plaintiffs’ failure to sign a Settlement Agreement that was never presented to, or agreed as to terms, by Plaintiffs.

The second involved the defense of a Palm Beach County suit by Builders Services. Osber again allegedly had day-to-day responsibility for the file:

After a Default Final Judgment was entered against Morse in December, 2007, Defendant Osber finally filed a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment and for Extension of Time on or about January 7, 2008, which motion was denied by the Court on or about January 31, 2008.

16. Osber and Rothstein proceeded to file a Notice of Appeal in an attempt to challenge the denial of their Motion to Set Aside the Judgment, but the appellate court ruled that the appeal seeks review of a “non-final order”, and ultimately the Appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in June 2008. Ultimately the Morses failed to have their rights and defenses properly litigated in the case as a result of the failure of Plaintiffs’ lawyers to properly file pleadings on their behalf.

The third involved a suit the Morses had brought against Mizner Lake Estates in Palm Beach state court:

In the Mizner Lake case, Rothstein and Osber represented Plaintiffs, and through their failure to communicate with Morse the Defendant had filed several Motions to Compel seeking to enforce the parties’ “interim agreement,” and seeking to have the Court enter an Order to Show Cause why the Morses Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court.

19. The Morses were not notified that they might be held in contempt of Court, or that they were required to sign any documents for which opposing counsel was attempting to hold them in contempt. In fact the Morses signed a Settlement Agreement, which was apparently not turned over to Defendants for reasons unknown to Plaintiffs.

20. Ultimately, in or about December 2008, Defendants Osber and Rothstein stipulated to the entry of an “Agreed Order on Motion to Show Cause re Plaintiffs’ Failure to Execute Settlement Agreement”, and dismissed the case after a hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Settlement.

21. Plaintiffs are informed and reasonably believe that the Mizner Lake case was dismissed with the knowledge and consent of Plaintiffs’ lawyers, including Defendants Osber and Rothstein, even though it does not appear that Plaintiffs’ claims were properly litigated and presented to the Court on behalf of the Morses, or that Plaintiffs actually received anything from their purported settlement.

Finally, the fourth matter involved an allegedly improper HVAC system at the Morses' Maine estate that they hired RRA to sue over:

Rothstein and Osber purported to work with Plaintiffs, and to engage co-counsel in Maine, due to an alleged “conflict” involving the adverse party W.H. Demmons a/k/a Maine A/C.

24. Plaintiffs are informed and reasonably believe that Rothstein and Osber sent co-counsel the content of a back-dated settlement letter; however as of the present time there has been no action filed, no actual settlement, and the Morses still have an overpriced and improper HVAC system in their Maine house.

25. As a result, once again, Plaintiffs are informed and reasonably believe that their lawyers at RRA, including Osber and Rothstein, failed to protect them and failed to reasonably act with due diligence to protect their clients’ rights

26. In each of the foregoing legal matters, Defendant Stracher, due to his relationship with the Morse family, has held himself out to Ed and Carol Morse as a trusted advisor who would supervise the various matters being handled by RRA lawyers on behalf of Morse, to make sure that their interests were protected.

RRA supposedly only has a $10 million dollar policy, so collecting on these claims will be extraordinarily difficult.



Also, where is the Morse suit over the forged Judge Marra order?

Scott Rothstein and the "Grip Flow System"

An interesting question is "does Scott practice law"?

In an effort to get to the bottom of this question, I took a look on PACER to see if Scott is counsel in any SD FL actions.

Surprisingly, Scott appears (still) as counsel of record for plaintiff Edward Bennett involving rights to his patented and trademarked "Grip Flow System."

Rothstein appears as lead counsel on the complaint, which was removed from state court back in June 2008, along with RRA lawyers Steven N. Lippman and Steven H. Osber (fine commercial litigators btw).

The case is pending before Judge Cooke.

To get a feel for how this case is going, take a look at plaintiff's motion to compel.

In an endorsed order dated 10/28/09 (D.E. 134), Magistrate Judge Bandstra didn't seem to like the motion all that much:

First, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs' motion does not adequately comply with the local rules. The motion does not attach the discovery requests or the responses thereto. As such, the Court cannot discern what obligations, if any, have not been complied with. Further, the undersigned notes that neither party seems to wish to comply with the certification requirements of meaningfully conferring with counsel in an effort to resolve a dispute. A phone call which actually occurs between counsel or a substantive correspondence would be a de minimus requirement to comply with the rule established by this Court. Finally, the undersigned finds the "memorandum of law" wholly inadequate to establish the relief requested in that general case law which does not address the specific issues before the Court do not satisfy the rule's requirements. Accordingly, the motion is denied with leave to refile a proper motion complying with the applicable rules.

Ouch -- time to light another cigar and say goodbye to your Ferrari.

UPDATE -- I don't know how I missed The Usual Suspects reference.