FILMORE CHAIKEN, APPELLANT,
v.
EDGAR LEWIS, ESQ., KEITH, MACK, LEWIS, COHEN AND LUMPKIN, F/K/A KEITH, MACK, LEWIS AND ALLISON, DANIEL A. SUCHMAN, ESQ., LEVINE, TRYSON, EVANS AND ADLER, F/K/A LEVINE, TRYSON AND SUCHMAN, ROBERT L. ROTH, ESQ., ALLISON R. DAY, ESQ., GLENN GRAHAM, CLIFFORD L. SUCHMAN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed judgment for defendant attorneys in legal malpractice action; trial court properly instructed jury that partnership counsel does not represent individual partners, and plaintiff failed to preserve fraud claim for appeal.
Partnership counsel represents the partnership entity but not individual partners, and this instruction complies with Florida Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-1.13.
[1] Counsel retained by a partnership represents the partnership entity and not the individual partners, consistent with Florida Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-1.13.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“counsel for a partnership represents the partnership entity, but does not thereby become counsel for each partner individually”
Trial court instruction on the scope of partnership counsel's representation
Filmore Chaiken was a member of a Florida general partnership and sued appellee attorneys for legal malpractice.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abandonment Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
, Filmore Chaiken appeals an adverse final judgment after jury trial in his action against the appellee attorneys for legal malpractice.
Plaintiff Filmore was a member of a Florida general partnership. He contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that counsel for a partnership represents the partnership entity, but does not thereby become counsel for each partner individually. We conclude that the instruction given by the trial court was correct and was consistent with Rule 4-1.13 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and the comment thereto, as well as American Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 361. As we reject the plain tiffs claim of error on this issue, we need not reach the defendant attorneys’ alternative argument that the plaintiffs claim fails in any event for want of expert testimony to support it.
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by directing a verdict on the plaintiffs fraud claim. We conclude that this point has not been preserved for appellate review because, rather than pressing his argument, plaintiff indicated that he would “defer to your [the judge’s] judgment” on the issue. Having effectively abandoned the point in the trial court, we conclude it is not preserved for appellate review.
In view of the foregoing rulings, the argument regarding punitive damages is moot.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JLF Enters., Inc. v. Malinski, 800 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…hat it found otherwise. The final summary judgment is affirmed as to the individual claims of the Friedes, but reversed as to JLF and remanded for further proceedings. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. . Malinski’s reliance on Chaiken v. Lewis, 754 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), is misplaced. Chaiken was a transactional case that has no application to the facts presented here.…
-
State v. In re Deborah Claudia Ezeta vs. Gregory Francois Frederic De La Begassiere, 262 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…counsel who did not object to the downward modification amount or the procedure the trial court employed to ascertain this amount. We affirm the trial court's order of January 10, 2018, because any alleged error was not preserved. Chaiken v. Lewis, 754 So. 2d 118, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a party that acquiesced to a trial court determination did not preserve the issue for appellate review); Kitchens By Design v. Confino, 687 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("We affirm the final judgment under…
-
Dept. of Revenue v. De La Begassiere (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…counsel who did not object to the downward modification amount or the procedure the trial court employed to ascertain this amount. We affirm the trial court’s order of January 10, 2018, because any alleged error was not preserved. Chaiken v. Lewis, 754 So. 2d 118, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a party that acquiesced to a trial court determination did not preserve the issue for appellate review); Kitchens By Design v. Confino, 687 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“We affirm the final judgment under…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence