Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Baiul loses lawsuit against NBC

  1. #1
    Trixie Schuba's biggest fan! blue dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,098

    Baiul loses lawsuit against NBC


  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,357
    For financial advisors there are rules about "fiduciary standards," which means that financial planners are obligated by law to act in the best interests of the client. (In some cases this means, for instance, that a stock broker is not supposed to sell you a bad stock just because he gets a high commission on the sale.)

    Is there a rule like that for lawyers? it seems like a lawyer ought to be obliged to tell his client that the suit she wishes to bring forward is frivolous and without merit and is likely to end up costing her money.

  3. #3
    Landing 3As in my dreams! skatedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    939
    Re: attorney ethics/frivolous suits, I did a little research but didn't come up with anything exactly on point. Although there are very specific ethical standards for attorneys in NY (some people might be surprised at that), apparently the "frivolous" idea is a somewhat gray area and is tough to define or pin down.

    Based on the small amount of material I've read, this suit seemed weak from the get-go but it's possible that it appeared to have more merit when it was first filed than it does now. It's also possible that Oksana insisted that her attorneys continue with it in spite of their best advice to the contrary. If that's what happened, they would have been obligated to follow her instructions -- in which case the judgment against her is her fault, not theirs.

    Another point worth noting is that Oksana did win a $9.5M judgment against the William Morris Agency for accounting irregularities. One hopes that the after-tax/after-legal-fees money was well-invested for her, but who knows? Still, in that context, $35K doesn't seem quite as huge although it's still a significant chunk of change.

    My sense is that Oksana has never really been able to find emotional stability or a real anchor for her life. Some day, I hope she does -- that's worth more than an OGM or any amount of money.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    For financial advisors there are rules about "fiduciary standards," which means that financial planners are obligated by law to act in the best interests of the client. (In some cases this means, for instance, that a stock broker is not supposed to sell you a bad stock just because he gets a high commission on the sale.)

    Is there a rule like that for lawyers? it seems like a lawyer ought to be obliged to tell his client that the suit she wishes to bring forward is frivolous and without merit and is likely to end up costing her money.
    Yes, there is a fiduciary duty for attorneys. If an attorney violates this duty, including malpractice (which giving crappy advice is), they can face a lot of problems. The litigant can sue their attorney for this violation. Also, if the judge believes the attorney / firm have acted improperly, they can impose monetary penalties on the attorney / firm rather than the litigant. In extreme cases, attorneys / firms can be held in contempt, but this is usually reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of bad faith. Also, if an attorney files many frivolous claim and the bar gets word there can be a wide range of punishments, including even suspension and revocation of their license.

    Quote Originally Posted by skatedreamer View Post
    Re: attorney ethics/frivolous suits, I did a little research but didn't come up with anything exactly on point. Although there are very specific ethical standards for attorneys in NY (some people might be surprised at that), apparently the "frivolous" idea is a somewhat gray area and is tough to define or pin down.

    Based on the small amount of material I've read, this suit seemed weak from the get-go but it's possible that it appeared to have more merit when it was first filed than it does now. It's also possible that Oksana insisted that her attorneys continue with it in spite of their best advice to the contrary. If that's what happened, they would have been obligated to follow her instructions -- in which case the judgment against her is her fault, not theirs.
    There is no obligation to take on a claim that is obviously ridiculous, in fact, there is an obligation not to waste the court's time. This isn't standard legal practice, but in my view the litigating attorney should also be held responsible for a frivolous case. The lawyer is obligated to make sure their client doesn't do something stupid, and if they insist on doing an action you deem legally imprudent you have an obligation to withdraw (the exception being in the case of mental illness / distress, in which case get a guardian). But that's just me.

    Anyway - I know nothing about this case, but the claim sounds ridiculous just from this article.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,139
    The article says she will have to pay AT LEAST $35,000, so the final judgment could be more.

  6. #6
    Custom Title skateluvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,592
    Oksana is really one who blew through money and trusted wrong people. She was just a kid who won over Nancy as the judges were sick to death by the time Nancy and Tonya actually skated, IMO. Maybe it was just fate that Oksana won by a fraction. I wish she got silver as she would have skated and made very good money but not the ego trip the gold sent her on. I always felt for her and wished she had stayed with Galina, Viktor and wife-solid, mature people who cared for her when she had nothing. A lot of leeches came after her, but she does seem intelligent, just not educated.

    God bless her. I will never forget her SP and how she always skated with her heart in those days. I recall she was so hurt when Sergei died. Katia rebounded fast but Oksana was so raw from losing her mom. I just wish Galina could have hung onto her. Best wishes Oksana if you ever read forums.

  7. #7
    Landing 3As in my dreams! skatedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by caelum View Post
    Yes, there is a fiduciary duty for attorneys. If an attorney violates this duty, including malpractice (which giving crappy advice is), they can face a lot of problems. The litigant can sue their attorney for this violation. Also, if the judge believes the attorney / firm have acted improperly, they can impose monetary penalties on the attorney / firm rather than the litigant. In extreme cases, attorneys / firms can be held in contempt, but this is usually reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of bad faith. Also, if an attorney files many frivolous claim and the bar gets word there can be a wide range of punishments, including even suspension and revocation of their license.


    There is no obligation to take on a claim that is obviously ridiculous, in fact, there is an obligation not to waste the court's time. This isn't standard legal practice, but in my view the litigating attorney should also be held responsible for a frivolous case. The lawyer is obligated to make sure their client doesn't do something stupid, and if they insist on doing an action you deem legally imprudent you have an obligation to withdraw (the exception being in the case of mental illness / distress, in which case get a guardian). But that's just me.

    Anyway - I know nothing about this case, but the claim sounds ridiculous just from this article.
    Understand and agree re: fiduciary duty & was surprised not to find anything more definite re: suits w/o merit & bad advice. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places or didn't use the best search terms.

    All of the above makes me wonder: (a) why the judge didn't threaten Oksana's attorney with some kind of penalty; and (b) why the suit was allowed to get as far as it did. It seems odd that the other side couldn't get it thrown out to begin with.

  8. #8
    Spiral Lover tulosai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,878
    The thing is too though, as a lawyer there is only so much you can do. There are some clients who when you lay it all out of them, still want to do a stupid thing. THe attorney does not make the decisions about what course of action to take. In fact that is an ethical breach. The client always has/makes the final decision. Possibly these lawyers laid it out for her and she said great, still sue. In such an instance the lawyer has no obligation to withdraw- to the contrary they have an obligation to obey the client and act zeaously on her behalf. and in such an instance even if the attorney did withdraw, the client could find another and would.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,799
    Oh goodness... It's difficult to read about Oksana's life these days. I'll try to keep her beautiful performances in my memory, and not think too hard about this whole lawsuit debacle...

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by skatedreamer View Post
    Understand and agree re: fiduciary duty & was surprised not to find anything more definite re: suits w/o merit & bad advice. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places or didn't use the best search terms.

    All of the above makes me wonder: (a) why the judge didn't threaten Oksana's attorney with some kind of penalty; and (b) why the suit was allowed to get as far as it did. It seems odd that the other side couldn't get it thrown out to begin with.
    Based on what I hear about the fees charged by NY firms (I'm a CA attorney) , the idea that they got around 35K indicates to me that NBC did get it thrown out early. Since NY firms can charge a few hundred dollars an hour, the costs of a trial can be a lot more than 35K ... there is a lot more lawyer's time involved, not to mention the costs of experts, etc.

  11. #11
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,357
    Maybe Oksana's legal tem hoped that the deep-pockets corporation would just throw a few dollars their way to make the nuisance go away and to avoid possible bad publicity.

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by skatedreamer View Post
    Understand and agree re: fiduciary duty & was surprised not to find anything more definite re: suits w/o merit & bad advice. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places or didn't use the best search terms.

    All of the above makes me wonder: (a) why the judge didn't threaten Oksana's attorney with some kind of penalty; and (b) why the suit was allowed to get as far as it did. It seems odd that the other side couldn't get it thrown out to begin with.
    From an Ontario attorney's perspective:

    (I can only speak to Canadian law but: ) Whether to proceed or not proceed with a case is up to the client (the lawyer at the beginning can agree or not agree to be retained at the beginning, but once retained and the suit commenced, rules start to kick in . . . see Tulosai's comments above), and whatever opinion the lawyer has provided, that opinion is not negligent or a breach of fiduciary duty, even if it is determined to be wrong, providing all of the law and the facts have been considered, and it has been properly qualified and given in good faith. I know that this is a New York case, but there is no indication here of any wrongful act by the attorney that I can perceive.

  13. #13
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17
    According to this article Oksana lost her lawsuit against NBC and the William Morris Agency. Scroll down to the end.
    http://hoodhustle.biz/hollywood-dock...a-baiul-v-wme/

  14. #14
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    91
    I haven't read about Oksana's lawsuit yet, but frivolous suits are brought quite a bit, despite the ethical standards that attorneys in every state are supposed to uphold. Also, all law students have to take a course in legal ethics, at least it was so back in the '80s. I'm assuming that hasn't changed. Furthermore, any lawyer can be brought up on malpractice charges, whether the charges have merit is another story.

    Edited to Add: Oksana's attorneys probably need to be on their guard. Since the lawsuit did not go her way, she may try to sue them.

    It's so very sad to see what her life has come to.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,495
    This is disheartening to read. This woman seems not to be able to gain a steady footing in life. Clearly for her it's not just the ice that's slippery.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •