From Jeffrey’s interview for the Masters of the Courtroom series on ReelLawyers.com
Within the first 30 days of your referral, Lapin & Leichtling will find out what the other side wants, and whether the matter can be quickly settled, and if so, how. Because not all matters can quickly be settled, within the first 30 days we also will prepare a proposed litigation plan for bringing the case to resolution, including anticipated tasks and an estimated budget. Your most important questions will be answered: how we plan to resolve the matter, how long it will take, and how much it will cost.
You have our word on this!
Our Work Speaks for ItselfMATTER: Prosecution of contested foreclosure.
STAKES: Our client sought recovery on a $2 Million loan that had been in default for more than ten years, with no reliable explanation provided for the loss of the note. The case was complicated by inconsistent testimony from company witnesses, and the business closure of the prior owner of the loan that had knowledge of the default and records of indebtedness.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: Lapin & Leichtling conducted a comprehensive investigation of the facts, including the prior law firm's records and prior mortgagee's records. We took depositions to unearth the truth about precisely when and how the original note was lost, and overcame inconsistent testimony at trial by articulating the theory that under either of the competing stories, our client should win.
OUTCOME: We obtained a $2.7 million foreclosure judgment after a two-day trial.
MATTER: Defense against an Illinois class action for alleged violations of consumer protection statutes and common law duties.
STAKES: The plaintiffs sought millions in damages for a putative class of more than fifteen thousand claimants.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: The lawyer at our firm who had handled this case successively pursued aggressive motion practice that resulted in dismissal of the claims creating the greatest financial exposure.
OUTCOME: We negotiated a settlement requiring payment of less than $100,000 and with the plaintiffs incurring the cost of the class settlement notice and claims administration.
MATTER: Defense of quiet title actions seeking to declare mortgages void based on the statute of limitations.
STAKES: Unenforceability of mortgages at issue, with precedent that could affect the enforceability of hundreds of thousands of mortgages.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: Lapin & Leichtling removed all the state court cases to federal court to make use of better developed law in the forum and a more receptive audience to our client's position on the key issues.
OUTCOME: Dismissal of all cases, including some that were voluntarily dismissed following removal even after default had been entered against our client in state court proceedings.
MATTER: Defense of lawyer in suit arising out of the lawyer's client's fraudulent lending scheme.
STAKES: Our client was the last defendant standing in a case seeking more than $65 million in damages. His testimony in defense of the suit could have fueled the prosecution of additional proceedings against him.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: Lapin & Leichtling successfully focused on the lawyer's client's commingling of funds as a defense to the causation and damages claim directed at our client, reducing his exposure. We helped secure use of the limited professional liability insurance funds available as a selling point for a negotiated settlement.
OUTCOME: Settled to the satisfaction of our client.
MATTER: Representation of mortgagee in suit against title insurance company for coverage after default judgment in a prior mortgagee's foreclosure action.
STAKES: Total loss of $680,000 mortgage interest.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: Lapin & Leichtling challenged the standard defense by the title carrier that notice after default creates prejudice precluding any coverage. We pursued the theory that prejudice was only partial, and that the title carrier was still liable for amounts beyond what it could have saved.
OUTCOME: Judgment in our client’s favor at trial, resulting in the title company's payment of approximately $580,000.
MATTER: Appeal of adverse attorney’s fee award to mortgagor pursuant to the mortgage and Florida's reciprocal fee statute after foreclosure was involuntarily dismissed for lack of standing.
STAKES: Award of attorney's fees to the mortgagor, commonplace after an involuntary dismissal, resulting in substantial sums paid in the aggregate by foreclosure plaintiffs.
OUR UNIQUE APPROACH: Lapin & Leichtling recommended to its clients that, despite the lack of specific legal precedent in the foreclosure context, we nonetheless argue in the trial courts and on appeal that a mortgagor should not be allowed to have it both ways. The mortgagor should not be allowed to successfully argue that the foreclosure plaintiff lacked standing – that it was not a party to the mortgage contract – and then turn around and demand reciprocal attorney's fees under that same mortgage contract after prevailing.
OUTCOME: Appellate court reversed the fee award, setting precedent in Florida and holding that a mortgagor cannot recover attorney’s fees under the mortgage contract after successfully arguing in court that the foreclosure plaintiff lacks standing and is a stranger to the mortgage contract.