Baker Sanders litigation takes an unexpected turn – and it is completely unrelated to PIP…

I apologize for not being too on the ball over the last few days with the posts.  I have been involved in this crazy Yellowstone case that has landed me to three different courts and I am sensing a trip to the Appellate Division.  There have been some real interesting ones that have come down the pike.  So here we go.

Baker Sanders v. Comprehensive, et. ano.

First, kudos to Dave Barshay.  Why you ask?  Well everyone is aware I think of that nasty malpractice case that has pitted his firm against ex clients and other attorneys.  As those who followed this saga are aware, the provider’s counsel, Roman Popik, Esq. served complaints upon certain partners of the Bakers, Sanders law firm individually, including David Barshay, Esq. and Robert Baker, Esq (the Baker Defendants).  The Baker Defendants apparently interposed a pre-answer motion.  Justice Warshawsky, following the submission of all of the papers and due deliberation had thereon wrote a 15 page order addressing the procedural infirmities of the complaint against the Baker Defendants.

What Mr. Popik in his complaint attempted to do was to hold the Baker Defendants personally liable for the alleged Baker, Sanders, LLC’s (“LLC”) malpractice.   The Supreme Court in dismissing the causes of action that sought to hold the Baker Defendants liable for the LLC’s conduct found that a piercing of the corporate veil analysis was appropriate, and observed that the above partners’ conduct was insufficient to allow personal liability based upon the LLC’s actions.  The Court also dismissed numerous causes of action as being duplicative of the malpractice cause of action.

At the end of the day, the Baker Defendants will only be held liable for their own individual malpractice, if any.  While I generally do not get involved with legal malpractice litigation, I sense that this case is quite precedential because it affords an incorporating attorney some of the same protections that other businesses enjoy through becoming a corporation.

Good job to the Baker Defendants.

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction
• The amendments to the regulations and what they mean to you
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post discussing Baker Sanders litigation and corporate veil piercing principles, New York case law regarding professional liability and LLC member personal liability may have evolved through subsequent court decisions. Additionally, procedural rules governing motion practice and pleading standards referenced in this case may have been updated. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR rules and recent precedent regarding professional entity liability when handling similar matters.