PHILADELPHIA – A father and son allege their former attorney committed professional malpractice by not informing them of a six-figure judgment levied against them, in addition to other forms of legal negligence.
Harry Schmidt and Gary Schmidt of Jamison filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 7 versus Robert Rosin, individually and as Robert Rosin, Esq. of Penllyn and Spring House.
The suit states that Harry earned a GED and Gary is a high school graduate with limited higher education, consisting of a few night courses at Bucks County Community College. Harry is divorced and has no other legal heirs.
Harry alleges he retained Rosin as his legal counsel and confidant in 1965, and in 1967, Rosin incorporated a small manufacturing business owned by Harry as “H&R Industries, Inc.” and handled all of the legal matters involving the company until it went out of business in 2015. Rosin also later performed legal work for both plaintiffs, they say.
On Nov. 9, 1989, Rosin drafted a Partnership Agreement and submitted the proposed agreement for a business venture known as “PA Associates," which gave defendant Rosin a 20 percent share of the partnership and a 50 percent say in the decision-making process, with only a limited amount of capital contribution on his part, the suit says.
“At no time prior to, during, or after the said agreement was drafted and submitted to plaintiff, Harry Schmidt for review and signature did defendant, Rosin ever disclose, either orally, or in writing, to plaintiff, Harry Schmidt, of his potential conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, his ethical obligations and legal obligations as is required of his lawyer and now-proposed business partner,” the suit says.
“Defendant, Robert Rosin’s failed to comply with the dictates of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, inter alia, but specifically Rules 1.8(a)(1)(2) and (3) by failing to advise plaintiff, Harry Schmidt, in writing, in a manner that could be reasonably understood by him, that he had the option of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel before entering into the said agreement.”
Rosin also handled Harry’s divorce and financial separation agreement with his ex-wife from 1995 through September 2004. As Harry approached the age of 65 in 2003, he requested that defendant Rosin transfer all of his assets to Gary for estate planning purposes, with these assets including his home in Jamison and interest in PA Associates, the suit says. Rosin allegedly drafted a Power of Attorney for Gary to act as Harry’s agent, subsequent to Harry having a stroke.
On or about March 23, 2011, defendant Rosin entered his appearance on behalf of Harry Schmidt and H & R Industries in a lawsuit filed by Bollard & Associates, Inc. for the payment of alleged past due sales commissions. On Oct. 29, 2015, in Bollard & Associates v. Harry Schmidt and H & R Industries, Inc. based in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, an order and verdict was entered in the amount of $402,815.73 against Harry Schmidt, individually and H & R Industries, the suit reads.
“On or about Feb. 9, 2016, the Court molded its verdict and entered judgment in the amount of $405,984.07 against Harry Schmidt, individually and H & R Industries. Defendant Rosin never notified plaintiff, Harry Schmidt or plaintiff, Gary Schmidt of the final judgment against Harry Schmidt, individually. Defendant Rosin knew that H & R Industries, Inc. had ceased to exist as a business entity in 2015," the suit says.
In March 2016, defendant Rosin prepared deeds and had Harry transfer the title in his Jamison home to joint ownership with Gary. That August, Rosin submitted documents containing changes not approved or discussed with the plaintiffs for signature and exerted undue and improper influence in obtaining those signatures in that amended version of the partnership agreement, the suit says.
“It was not until a praecipe for Writ of Execution with Garnishment was served on or about Sept. 12, 2016 on plaintiff, Harry Schmidt’s joint bank account with plaintiff, Gary Schmidt were plaintiffs made aware the Judgment against plaintiff, Harry Schmidt. On or about Dec. 8, 2017, counsel for plaintiff, Bollard & Associates filed a lawsuit against PA Associates…alleging fraudulent property transfers in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 12 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5101, et.seq,” according to the lawsuit.
“In 2018, as a direct and proximate result of the intentional, negligent, grossly negligent acts and omissions of defendant, Rosin and the fraudulent property transfer lawsuit filed by Bollard & Associates, plaintiffs entered into an agreement to satisfy the Bollard Judgment in the amount of approximately $400,000.”
According to the plaintiffs, the defendant failed to transfer assets when requested, negligently handled the Bollard & Associates v. Harry Schmidt and H & R Industries, Inc. litigation and breached attorney-client privilege by not exercising in good faith, among many other allegations.
For a count of professional negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, punitive damages and other such relief as the court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Richard J. Margolis of Margolis Edelstein, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is representing himself in this matter.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180400428
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com