Law Office failure established through associate attorney deception

Law office failure cases often involve more than simple oversight or scheduling conflicts. Sometimes, they reveal deeper issues of professional misconduct that can have serious consequences for both clients and supervising attorneys. The Second Department’s decision in Scholem v Acadia Realty L.P. illustrates how deceptive conduct by an associate attorney can provide the foundation for establishing law office failure as a defense.

In litigation, attorneys have strict obligations to ensure witnesses appear for depositions and comply with court orders. When these obligations aren’t met, courts may impose sanctions including striking pleadings or entering default judgments. However, as we’ve seen in cases involving excusable neglect, not all explanations for missed deadlines will satisfy the court’s requirements for relief.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Scholem v Acadia Realty L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 07943 (2d Dept. 2016)

“Here, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to enforce the conditional order and strike the defendant’s answer, the defendant submitted affidavits which, taken together, set forth a detailed and credible explanation for the failure to produce the witnesses for deposition (see Blake v United States of Am., 109 AD3d 504, 505), based on acts of misconduct and deception on the part of the associate attorney handling the matter for the defendant’s attorney”

The famous line before the associate attorney leaves: “Don’t worry, everything is taken care of.” Well – reality is a bummer sometimes,

Key Takeaway

This case demonstrates that law office failure can be established through detailed affidavits showing associate attorney misconduct and deception. Unlike situations where attorneys simply fail to meet deadlines or fail to properly stipulate to adjournments, proven deception by subordinate attorneys provides a more compelling basis for relief from sanctions.