Japanese Company Gets Damages From US Law Firm

[Mulboyne]

JCN: Tokyo Kikai Settles Dispute with U.S. Law Firm
Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho said Friday it will receive 19 million dollars to settle its dispute with a U.S. law firm over alleged legal malpractice. The Japanese newspaper rotary press maker declined to name the law firm or give details of the malpractice, citing a nondisclosure agreement. Tokyo Kikai revised up its group net profit estimate to 2.2 billion yen from 1.1 billion yen for the year to March 2008. Tokyo Kikai had been seeking damages payments from the law firm blaming it for the loss of a U.S. antidumping suit that led the Japanese company to pay 4,480 million yen in damages to U.S. printing maker Goss International Corp.

Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho makes newspaper printing presses.

[Charles]

..Tokyo Kikai had been seeking damages payments from the law firm blaming it for the loss of a U.S. antidumping suit that led the Japanese company to pay 4,480 million yen in damages to U.S. printing maker Goss International Corp..

Holy crap, this is almost local news for me. A few years ago, Goss shut down their largest press manufacturing facility, only about 15 miles from me. They blamed losses from competition with companies like Tokyo Kikai. But of course it was all a lie, they really wanted a good excuse to shut down highly paid US union laborers and move their manufacturing to Shanghai. So they did.
Welcome to the global marketplace.

[kamome]

I've been trying to hunt down the name of the law firm, but all I can come up with so far is a .pdf of the actual decision in the case here.

I can't seem to find a mention of the firm's name in the case either, but their name will be outed somewhere in the blawgosphere soon I'm sure.

[amdg]

The malpractice case would be a seperate suit, no?

Edit - sorry, I see what you were trying to do now.

[amdg]

What about this?

http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/juryverd.nsf/7976cc031b7f5fb78625688d005c7d91/7cbbef21e6173bb786256df20070de18?OpenDocument


Barry J. Reingold
Perkins Coie, LLP
607 14th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

Nicholas V. Critelli, Jr.
Nicholas Critelli Associates
317 Sixth Avenue
Suite 950
Des Moines, IA 50309-4128
ph. 515-243-3122

Barry Reingold looks like he may have lost some hair over this case.
http://www.perkinscoie.com/breingold/

The other firm involved (http://www.critellilaw.com/ ) is a unique trial lawyer counsel service (rather like a barrister), so they would not have been the primary lawyers for this case. Most likely they were actually immune from malpractice litigation, seeing as how they work for the trial lawyer, not the client, and can therefore avoid a legal relationship with the client.

[kamome]

What about this?

http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/juryverd.nsf/7976cc031b7f5fb78625688d005c7d91/7cbbef21e6173bb786256df20070de18?OpenDocument


Barry J. Reingold
Perkins Coie, LLP
607 14th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

Nicholas V. Critelli, Jr.
Nicholas Critelli Associates
317 Sixth Avenue
Suite 950
Des Moines, IA 50309-4128
ph. 515-243-3122

Barry Reingold looks like he may have lost some hair over this case.
http://www.perkinscoie.com/breingold/

The other firm involved (http://www.critellilaw.com/ ) is a unique trial lawyer counsel service (rather like a barrister), so they would not have been the primary lawyers for this case. Most likely they were actually immune from malpractice litigation, seeing as how they work for the trial lawyer, not the client, and can therefore avoid a legal relationship with the client.

Great find, amdg! Critelli was local counsel in Iowa for Perkins Coie. Perkins was on the hook for malpractice probably because they were primary counsel and directing strategy for the litigation. I don't know if that makes Critelli immune, but certainly Perkins was the deeper pocket.

[Charles]

Great find, amdg! Critelli was local counsel in Iowa for Perkins Coie. Perkins was on the hook for malpractice probably because they were primary counsel and directing strategy for the litigation. I don't know if that makes Critelli immune, but certainly Perkins was the deeper pocket.

I talked to a local lawyer here in Iowa, he handled Federal cases, and he said that if you have a choice, file your case anywhere other than this Federal district. He said our district has about the worst judges in the whole system.
So there is likely to be more blame to spread around, bad lawyering plus bad judging tends to make a bad result for everyone. Well, bad for everyone except Goss. Maybe in this case, Goss took advantage of that weakness and filed here, perhaps they were shopping for a court to take advantage of.

[Greji]

Well, bad for everyone except Goss. Maybe in this case, Goss took advantage of that weakness and filed here, perhaps they were shopping for a court to take advantage of.

Ahh, Charles, would that be like "What's good for the Goss is good for the Gander"?

[Adhesive]

Hope they have malpractice insurance!

I think if the original defendant was being advised by Critelli, they could have joined them as co-defendants, arguing that Critelli was solely/jointly liable for one or more TKS's causes of actions, right?

BTW, this reminds me of the Zennith v. Matsushita case...there must be a lot of cases dealing with waning American companies suing the Japanese in last ditch efforts to remain afloat.

[Adhesive]

The District Court Docket lists these attorneys as counsel:

NICHOLAS CRITELLI III and NICHOLAS CRITELLI JR
Nick Critelli and Associates

NEIL R. ELLIS, CARTER G. PHILLIPS, and LAWRENCE RICHARD WALDERS
Sidley & Austin

BARRY J. REINGOLD
Perkins & Coie

HOKEN S. SEKI

PETER J. TOREN
Kasowitz & Benson

Their appellate brief includes everyone except Reingold and the Critelli's. My questions is, why does the jury verdict only list Reingold and Critelli as the defense attorneys? Does this have something to do with who actually tries the case? Just curious.

[amdg]

The District Court Docket lists these attorneys as counsel:

NICHOLAS CRITELLI III and NICHOLAS CRITELLI JR
Nick Critelli and Associates

NEIL R. ELLIS, CARTER G. PHILLIPS, and LAWRENCE RICHARD WALDERS
Sidley & Austin

BARRY J. REINGOLD
Perkins & Coie

HOKEN S. SEKI

PETER J. TOREN
Kasowitz & Benson

Their appellate brief includes everyone except Reingold and the Critelli's. My questions is, why does the jury verdict only list Reingold and Critelli as the defense attorneys? Does this have something to do with who actually tries the case? Just curious.

Because they are the only defense attorneys. The others were for the plaintiff.

[amdg]

Hope they have malpractice insurance!

Insurance is compulsory in my country of origin. Not so in the states?

I think if the original defendant was being advised by Critelli, they could have joined them as co-defendants, arguing that Critelli was solely/jointly liable for one or more TKS's causes of actions, right?

In simple terms, the defendant hired Perkins Coie, LLP to act for them. Perkins Coie then hired Critelli, like a sub-contractor, for assitance in preparing the case. Critelli are originally British barristers. Barristers are immune from malpractice suits in their own countries and really appreciate this luxury. However, they are not automatically immune in the USA. So I speculate that they would have taken great pains to protect themselves from malpractice suits. After this, I don't know anything, and it may in fact have been impossible for them to protect themselves, and Perkins (who would be the first obvious target, having the deepest pockets as Kamome pointed out) joined them as co-defendants.

[Adhesive]

Insurance is compulsory in my country of origin. Not so in the states?




In simple terms, the defendant hired Perkins Coie, LLP to act for them. Perkins Coie then hired Critelli, like a sub-contractor, for assitance in preparing the case. Critelli are originally British barristers. Barristers are immune from malpractice suits in their own countries and really appreciate this luxury. However, they are not automatically immune in the USA. So I speculate that they would have taken great pains to protect themselves from malpractice suits. After this, I don't know anything, and it may in fact have been impossible for them to protect themselves, and Perkins (who would be the first obvious target, having the deepest pockets as Kamome pointed out) joined them as co-defendants.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Malpractice insurance isn't compulsory, in California at least. In fact, they are just now deciding whether or not lawyers need to disclose to their clients in advance that they are without insurance!

[kamome]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Malpractice insurance isn't compulsory, in California at least. In fact, they are just now deciding whether or not lawyers need to disclose to their clients in advance that they are without insurance!

I don't know whether it's compulsory or not, but I've never heard of a law firm, especially a substantially sized one like Perkins, operating without malpractice insurance. Every firm gets sued for malpractice at one point or another (including by disgruntled clients who aren't happy with a verdict). Since the partners are on the hook they will get that insurance to protect their personal assets.

[Mulboyne]

UnionLeader.com: Not fair trade: U.S. has done little to aid Goss

A Japanese manufacturing firm was caught red-handed trying to destroy its only U.S. competitor, and our government has done little to help the American firm, while the Japanese government has come to the aid of its company by passing legislation to effectively nullify the American firm's hard-won financial award. Don't think that this is of little consequence here in New Hampshire. The American firm has facilities in Dover and Durham. The story of Goss International's fight against TKS of Japan seems sadly illustrative of the imbalance between reality and rhetoric when American politicians say they are for "free and fair" trade.

It was only through Goss' persistence, not our government's, that it was proven that TKS had sold press equipment in the U.S. at below-market costs. While the Commerce Department has now followed Goss' lead and is seeking imposition of an import penalty, the Bush administration has not always done so. A Government Accounting Office study has found that the U.S. has failed to collect more than a half-BILLION dollars in anti-dumping tariffs owed by foreign competitors. The Japanese government, on the contrary, made it quite clear whose side it was on. No sooner did Goss win a $31 million court verdict against TKS then Tokyo passed "clawback" legislation that allows TKS to seize $31 million in Goss assets in Japan.

The U.S. District Court judge who presided over the Goss verdict was rightly furious, saying this was contradictory to her order and an interference with U.S. legal process. However, she was overridden at an appeals level, and when Goss sought U.S. Supreme Court review, the U.S. Solicitor General opposed Goss and the court refused the case.

This is preposterous. U.S. trade and State Department representatives should be demanding that Japan revoke its "clawback" outrage. But we won't hold our breath waiting. U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu have been frustrated thus far in their efforts to help Goss. There seems to be little interest, from either political party or from the Washington bureaucracy, in putting teeth in the "fair" part of "free and fair trade." The Union Leader Corp. has a Goss-made inserting machine, produced right here in New Hampshire. It is why we can attest to Goss President Bob Brown's statement that his American workers (some 800 in N.H.) can stack up against any foreign competition. But that is only if the competitive rules are actually enforced.

[Charles]

UnionLeader.com: Not fair trade: U.S. has done little to aid Goss

You know, I was talking to a guy at work the other day, we were chatting local politics and I mentioned how the Goss printing press manufacturing plant near here was closed and production outsourced to Taiwan. He surprised me by showing me the Goss logo on his jacket.. he was a former Goss technician. Geez. I was surprised to learn how big an impact its closure was on the local Union scene. The print trade was always a Union stronghold.