Baiul loses lawsuit against NBC | Golden Skate

Baiul loses lawsuit against NBC

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

skatedreamer

Medalist
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Country
United-States
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.
 

caelum

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
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.

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.
 

Icey

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
The article says she will have to pay AT LEAST $35,000, so the final judgment could be more.
 

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
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.
 

skatedreamer

Medalist
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Country
United-States
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.
 

tulosai

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
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.
 

Sandpiper

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
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...
 

attyfan

Custom Title
Medalist
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
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.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

phaeljones

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
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.
 

Panpie

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
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.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
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.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
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.

It's stories like her's that makes me wish all these skaters who struggle for years explore life outside of skating, like going to college to build the skill set needed for a career. Oksana won all the big prizes but has nothing to fall back on. Medalists like Tim Goebel and Sarah Hughes went to school and are now thriving in careers outside the sport.
 

skatedreamer

Medalist
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Country
United-States
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.

Sad, indeed. In a way, almost as tragic as Tonya Harding -- so incredibly gifted as a skater but short-changed in so many other aspects of life. As another post pointed out, it's especially unfortunate that she couldn't/wouldn't learn from the guidance of people who seemed to have her best interests at heart. Hope she doesn't start with any more legal action -- IMO, a waste of time, money & energy.
 

NYscorp6

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Country
United-States
I do feel badly for Oksana, it is so necessary to surround yourself with good people that you can rely on to be honest and watch your back.

It makes you wonder what if? What if Kristi had decided to defend her title in 1994? What if Oksana won silver instead, would she have continued on towards 1998? Then again if Kristi did come back would there ever have been the Nancy/Tonia saga? Would the sport popularity exploded without the knee whack? Oh the figure skating drama.

I hope Oksana can rebound and enjoy her life.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
It makes you wonder what if? What if Kristi had decided to defend her title in 1994? What if Oksana won silver instead, would she have continued on towards 1998? Then again if Kristi did come back would there ever have been the Nancy/Tonia saga? Would the sport popularity exploded without the knee whack? Oh the figure skating drama.

Skating would be so different. Kristi was willing to stay until 1994 had Ito won gold. Her technical level was miles ahead of what Oksana showed in 1993 and 1994, and I think with Kristi around Tonya may have been more disciplined in her training. Nancy would not have been the victim of the attack because Tonya would have still not been the best American most likely.
 

slider11

Medalist
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
This is a story of a little girl who went from zero to hero so fast and had little stability to guide her through. She did need a Viktor and wife or someone to keep her grounded. I remember her in that fairly ridiculous pink costume with feathers. And frankly Nancy did beat her on technical ability but Oksana had such heart and everyone was sick of the Tonya/Nancy thing. Oksana was a Tonya with a Ukranian accent. It's just her antics came later with alcohol and then bizarre behavior. But, at some point, you have to stop feeling sorry for her and tell her that she needs to take responsibility. I guess that's what she'll have to do now with $35,000 bill in the mail. I don't blame NBC. That kind of action (suing frivolously) is wrong.
 
Top