Young v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8252
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Young sues Becker & Poliakoff for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty over handling of her BellSouth employment discrimination suit.
- Jury awards $394,000 compensatory and $4.5 million punitive; trial court remits punitive to $2 million for economic castigation concerns.
- Jackson v. BellSouth settlement in 2002 netted Becker & Poliakoff $2.9 million in fees; firm simultaneously represented plaintiffs in Jackson while negotiating the BellSouth settlements.
- Becker & Poliakoff failed to attach the correct EEOC right-to-sue letter in May 2001, leading to dismissal of Title VII and FCRA claims with prejudice; firm did not amend, appeal, or timely correct.
- Young's later 2003 suit was filed and ultimately discouraged by res judicata, collateral estoppel, laches, and splitting of claims defenses.
- Becker & Poliakoff challenges focus on remittitur basis and the trial court's handling of cross-examination limits; court ultimately affirms remittitur and denial of directed verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was remittitur appropriate? | Young contends $2M reflects proportionality to net worth and error in wiring the figure to avoid bankruptcy. | Becker argues remittitur should be higher or not permitted given damages and net worth. | Remittitur affirmed; $2M not excessive. |
| Do constitutional limits support the punitive award? | Punitive damages tied to reprehensibility and misconduct, including enjoined abandonment for profit. | Award is excessive given the firm’s net worth and financial ability to pay; should be reduced further or set aside. | Award upheld under due process standards; not excessive. |
| Did the trial court properly deny a directed verdict on legal malpractice? | Becker's actions caused loss by precluding viable Title VII/FCRA claims; damages showed proximate causation. | Young abandoned or waived claims; no proven causation for malpractice. | Directed verdict denial affirmed; evidence supports malpractice claim. |
| Was impeachment of Romeo by evidence of disbarment properly excluded? | Disbarment evidence is relevant to credibility of a key witness. | Disbarment evidence is improper collateral attack on credibility. | Exclusion affirmed; ruling not an abuse of discretion. |
| Did the cross-appeal require further relief on punitive damages? | N/A (not explicitly requested in cross-appeal for compensatory elements). | Cross-appeal seeks additional relief due to trial court rulings. | Cross-appeal denied; final judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (three guideposts for punitive damages: reprehensibility, ratio, penalty relationship)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (reprehensibility and ratio considerations for due process in punitive damages)
- Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (extraordinary wrongdoing justifies extraordinary punishment despite nominal damages)
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1993) (constitutional context for punitive damages and net worth relevance)
- Arab Termite & Pest Control of Fla. v. Jenkins, 409 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1982) (considering financial position in assessing punitive damages)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (standard for reviewing punitive damages and remittitur on due process grounds)
- Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (abuse of discretion standard in remittitur review)
- S & S Toyota, Inc. v. Kirby, 649 So.2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (abuse of discretion upholding remittitur of punitive damages)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (punitive damages proportionality framework to due process)