21 février, 2007 17:41
Judge to Med-Mal Attorney: No More Fees for You
By Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
02-21-2007
A Manhattan judge has denied a lawyer's request for additional fees from a $3.75 million medical malpractice settlement, ruling instead that the lawyer had already taken more than he was entitled to.
Norman L. Cousins represented Kevin Veneski in a 1997 suit against Queens-Long Island Medical Group over Veneski's 1996 stroke, which had left him disabled and unable to work. The matter settled in 2002 for a $3 million lump sum and an annuity yielding $750,000 over the next 20 years.
The retainer agreement provided that Cousins would receive 30 percent only of the first $250,000 of recovery, with his share shrinking to 10 percent of any amount over $1.25 million.
But Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein Heitler ruled in a Feb. 2 decision that Cousins had already billed and received attorney fees of around $948,000, almost one-third of the lump-sum portion of the settlement.
As a result, "the court concludes that Cousins owes Veneski, at a minimum, approximately $513,000 that he has received over and above the statutorily permitted amount," the judge wrote in Veneski v. Queens-Long Island Medical Group, 100011/98.
Cousins had moved for additional fees on the grounds that the expense and length of the litigation had forced him to file for bankruptcy. He claimed he had been forced to resort to predatory lenders to finance the case, accumulating almost $700,000 in interest charges on around $500,000 in principal.
The judge noted it was unclear how much Cousins borrowed for the case. One lender, Legal Asset Funding, has sued both Cousins and Veneski, despite having received over $200,000 in payments.
Cousins also sought to borrow $250,000 from Veneski at a 10 percent interest rate. Veneski agreed to lend $65,000, and Cousins gave him a promissory note signed not by himself but by another one of his medical malpractice clients.
Justice Heitler said this loan and Veneski's subsequent claim that he felt pressured to make it, raised a serious question about Cousins' conduct. Though she noted that it appeared unrelated to the matter of legal fees, the judge said the matter merited referral to the departmental disciplinary committee.
Cousins said he would move for reargument on the grounds that Heitler did not hold a hearing on the matter. He said facts of the case would be clarified at hearing and his conduct would be cast in a different light.
