Rushmore condominium Upper West Side condo.jpgEarlier this week, we wrote about a serious drafting mistake by Stroock & Stroock & Lavan — maybe a typo, maybe not — that could cost Stroock’s client millions.

Could Stroock look to its malpractice insurer for help? Maybe not, according to the New York Post:

The gaffe exposes Stroock to the real possibility of having to pay back Extell and Carlyle out of its own pocket because sources said that if the developers sue Stroock, it’s unlikely its insurer will pick up the tab.

The basis for this prediction is not included in the Post article. If you have thoughts on the insurance issue, please do share. Stroock didn’t comment to the New York Times, which first wrote about the error, but they did offer brief comment to the Post.

Stroock logo.JPGStroock lawyers had the following to say to the Post:

Leonard Boxer, who heads Stroock’s real-estate team of 55 lawyers, said he can’t comment on the ongoing case, but added that the snafu is “unlikely” to bring down the entire law firm.

Charles Moerdler, a founding partner of Stroock’s litigation practice, said that no matter what the result of this case, the law firm’s survival is not in question.

Well that’s reassuring. Perhaps the firm can weather one hit, but let’s hope that lightning doesn’t Stroock twice.

WRONG NUMBER: CONTRACT TYPO COULD COST FIRM $100M [New York Post]

Earlier: A Very Expensive Typo?


comments sponsored by

64 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments