Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP
212 Md. App. 685
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- This is a consolidated Maryland appeal arising from a civil action for legal malpractice and related claims against Arent Fox LLP, Arent Fox PLLC, and Gerard Leval, filed October 27, 2010 in Montgomery County.
- Non-parties Catler, Mark Blumberg, and Susan Blumberg Levin challenged circuit court orders compelling production of documents; privilege disputes were central to that interlocutory appeal.
- The circuit court granted nine summary judgment motions and one dismissal motion on various theories after a two-day hearing, and the appellants timely appealed the summary judgments.
- The underlying project involved the University Town Center expansion, including refinancing and inter-company loans (Wells Fargo $83M and Key Bank $57M), with collateral and later defaults impacting the project’s completion.
- Mr. Blumberg’s cognitive decline/dementia became a central factual backdrop, with questions whether guardianship or protective actions by counsel were required, given capacity concerns.
- The court addressed multiple theories, including statute of limitations, duty to provide business/guardian advice, conflicts, fiduciary duties, concealment, causation, and the applicability of in pari delicto, ultimately affirming the circuit court's judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privilege and discovery | Catler: privilege applies to his work for Blumberg; Blumbergs: privilege log validity matters. | Arent Fox: Catler/Shulman Rogers not in privity; logs and waivers insufficient; non-parties not entitled to privilege. | Privilege not attached; order upheld that production proceed. |
| Summary judgment on all claims | Appellants contend genuine issues of material fact exist on duty, causation, and damages requiring trial. | Arent Fox: undisputed facts justify judgment as a matter of law on multiple theories (limitations, duties, conflicts, guardianship, causation). | Court affirmed summary judgments on all asserted grounds. |
| Statute of limitations and accrual | Discovery rule tolls accrual; damages tied to later events not before 2006. | Claims accrued before 2006; tolling periods insufficient to save the claims; timely briefing lacking on accrual. | Limitation defenses sustained; claims time-barred as to accrual-related theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kami v. Kann, 344 Md. 689 (Md. 1997) (breach of fiduciary duty not a standalone remedy; must be tied to another action)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 159 Md. App. 123 (Md. 2004) (causation-in-fact and the role of jury in resolving material facts)
- Havens v. Schaffer, 217 Md. 323 (Md. 1958) (what will amount to reasonable care is ordinarily a question for the jury)
- O'Hara v. Kovens, 305 Md. 280 (Md. 1986) (discovery rule and jury questions on diligence and discovery)
- CIGNA Prop. & Cas. Cos. v. Zeitler, 126 Md. App. 444 (Md. 1999) (expert testimony required to prove standard of care; Rule 5-702 analysis)