Switzer v. Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament, Bell & Rubenstein, P.C.

Barry Switzer (plaintiff) sued the law firm Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament, Bell & Rubenstein, P.C. (Much) (defendant) for malpractice seeking over $4 million plus punitive damages. The parties missed the mediation deadline despite two extensions. The court entered an order admonishing the parties and again ordered the parties to mediate and file a report. Mediation occurred, but no representatives for Much or its insurer or lead counsel attended. The court entered another order explaining mediation attendance requirements and sanctioned Much $1,120. The next month, no representatives for Much or the insurer attended a court-ordered judicial-settlement conference. The court referred the matter to a magistrate for a sanctions hearing. Much’s lead counsel, Tom King, arrived 20 minutes late and made comments that showed Much viewed settlement discussion as useless and lacked interest in participating. The magistrate concluded Much displayed an arrogant attitude and repeatedly disregarded scheduling orders and violated the local rules, warranting significant sanctions but not default judgment, and recommended precluding Much from defending against liability other than cross-examining Switzer’s witnesses. Much objected to the magistrate’s report, claiming the magistrate reacted with intolerance to the needs of a sick child who made King late, characterizing the magistrate as “incensed” and reacting with “rancor,” “acute indignation,” “wrath,” and “fury.” Both sides suggested a different magistrate conduct another settlement conference.