Complaint Review: Henry Wasserstein - New York New York

Henry P. Wasserstein's mishandling of his client Harriet Lembeck's representation led to devastation of her wine school business and her career. He is a former long time partner and now of counsel of the prestigious "fearsome foursome" law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP law firm. A partner in a Wall Street law firm is of the view that his may constitute legal malpractice.

See for yourself from the letter below. Henry has not given Harriet consent to enter into a friendly lawsuit against him and his firm nor has he cut her a check from his personal bank account as of this posting.

"Your former colleague, David Bamberger, called me the other day to inform me that he was representing the Lembeck's. We established an immediate rapport and amicable relationship and had an hour long conversation which I believe will lead to an amicable out-of-court resolution of all the issues concluding once and for all the forty year old saga between the parties if only the Lembeck's follow David's advice. He said that he didn't mind being tape recorded. Its a shame that you did not learn from David when he worked for you and behaved similarly as you could have spared the Lembeck's the considerable pain and heartbreak that stemmed from your representation.

I suggested to David that as part of our settlement, that the Lembeck's assign to me their legal claims against you and the Skadden firm for legal malpractice. I conferred with a well respected Wall Street law firm over my theory of legal malpractice against you and your firm and was informed that there may very well be a colorable claim. The claim is as follows: You thoroughly researched my background on the Internet and in the Court records and were fully aware of everything about me, who I was and what I was capable of. You saw the Internet posting that I was the "High priest of revenge."

That not withstanding, you proceeded to irk, irritate, disparage and annoy me by ignoring my communications with the consequence of demeaning and disparaging me and furthermore unfairly cited the Lewis Brisbois case after being warned not to do so after it was demonstrated to you that the ruling was unwarranted. The consequence of your behavior was extremely adverse and devastating to the Lembeck's as you were advised it would be. Your persistence in your egoistic behavior toward me constituted legal malpractice. Your failure to advise Harriet to revise her book constituted legal malpractice. Your refusal to respond to my communications to the detriment of your client constituted legal malpractice.

The consequences of the foregoing to the Lembeck's included the following:

Following your refusal to inform me as to whether or not Harriet Lembeck would revise her manuscript including answering the "yes" or "no" questions, a solicitation was sent to more than 300 wine writers including the membership of the Wine Media Guild requesting a quote to revise the manuscript. The solicitation included for the writers' analysis the story of the Smart Guide Publication's episode, the Pen and Pencil Publication's episode, a copy of Harriet's manuscript, a copy of the Smart Guide editor's reader report, the sale of the contract to me and my becoming Harriet's savior discontinuing the book's publication on the Internet as "the worst wine book ever written" and my deciding to publish it as a good book, hence the solicitation for a ghostwriter. I was able to find a ghostwriter who would create a Second Edition of the book for $29,000. You should have advised Harriet to revise the book and avoid this expense. Thus, you are guilty of legal malpractice on two fronts. Harriet's damage in this regard is $29,000.

Your inappropriate citation of the Lewis Brisbois case prompted me to explore the legality of Harriet's wine and spirits school with the following consequences.

Harriet has been illegally serving wine and spirits at her school without a wine license at her building at 203 E. 29th Street which is a residential apartment for twenty-three years. She can not obtain a wine or spirits license for that location. Consequently, she will have to discontinue her classes at that location and move them to a licensed facility such as a hotel or restaurant at significant expense. The cost of such a facility might make conducting her classes economically unfeasible and she may have to discontinue her courses. A complaint was lodged with the New York State Liquor Authority. She may be fined or imprisoned. This is all your fault.

Similarly, the Certificate of Occupancy for the building is for a two family residence. This precludes business use. As such, she can not conduct her school from the premises at 203 E 29th Street. Furthermore, William will owe some twenty-three years in back taxes for the difference between residential tax assessment and commercial tax assessment for the building for which there will probably be a significant penalty. A complaint was made to the New York City Building Department as a consequence of your behavior. This is all your fault.

A complaint was filed with the New York City Fire Department for fire code violations at 203 E. 29th Street. This is all you fault.

David tells me that you and the Lembeck's go back a long way and that they will never sue you because they care about you. It you care about them like they care about you and give a d**n about the fact that you have cost them a large amount of money, damages in the significant six figures, you should care enough to volunteer your firm's legal malpractice insurance to cover their losses by telling them that they have your approval to sue you and the firm in a friendly legal malpractice lawsuit.

Alternatively, you can just write the Lembeck's a check from your personal bank account. You are a very wealthy attorney, having been a partner at Skadden since its early days. The several hundred thousand dollars involved should be considered well spent considering the enormous satisfaction you received in irking, irritating, diminishing, belittling and disparaging me in your efforts to make me your supplicant, albeit unsuccessfully.

One way or another, you need to make it up to the Lembeck's for bringing all this upon them with your untoward behavior.

Don't arrogantly write to me that this is not all your fault. It was. I was there and know it for a fact. But for you, none of this would have occured.