From the Daily News:<\/p>\n
Lawyer win in Perelman case<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A New Jersey appeals court on Thursday ruled that billionaire Revlon chairman Ron Perelman’s initial challenge to his former father-in-law’s estate plan was “frivolous,” but a $2 million fine against his lawyers for bringing it was too harsh.<\/em><\/p>\n The Appellate Division ruling stems from a 2008 battle between Perelman and his former in-laws, the Cohens. The decision has no direct impact on an on-going trial in which daughter Samantha Perelman is challenging her grandfather’s will.<\/em><\/p>\n Interesting, for several reasons. First, it brings up the issue of frivolous lawsuits. And maybe you didn’t know that a court could toss a lawsuit not just because the judge decided against the plaintiff, but because the lawsuit itself was frivolous. That is, a deliberate nuisance. Second, maybe you didn’t know that lawyers could be fined for representing a client, i.e., signing off on a lawsuit that is declared frivolous.<\/p>\n I can understand why lawyers for Perelman would be persuaded to file such a lawsuit. I’ve heard the lawyer’s expression, “we don’t control the client.” But that doesn’t mean that a lawyer can’t just back away from the lawsuit. Yeah, I guess if you want to keep this valuable, big money client in your law firm portfolio, you might tremble at turning down participation in his lawsuit.<\/p>\n But this is what happens when you don’t: you have to spend more money convincing a court that your $2 million fine is too much.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From the Daily News: Lawyer win in Perelman case A New Jersey appeals court on Thursday ruled that billionaire Revlon chairman Ron Perelman’s initial challenge to his former father-in-law’s estate plan was “frivolous,” but a $2 million fine against his … Continue reading