Frivolous lawsuit dismissed by Buffalo judge

Listen to this article

A Buffalo City Court judge has dismissed a frivolous lawsuit filed by an attorney against his former law firm.

Plaintiff Jack R. Morgan, who represented himself in this case, filed a motion seeking reimbursement of $1,439 for his continuing legal education and bar fees.

Morgan claimed the costs were incurred as necessary business expenses while he was employed by Feldman Kieffer LLP, the defendant.

Judge Rebecca L. Town ruled that the action was frivolous and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Morgan was employed by Feldman Kieffer, where the employee handbook stated that employees would be reimbursed for “all necessary and reasonable expenses incident to the normal conduct of business”, but reimbursement was “contingent upon prior approval of a manager and accompanied by receipts”. .”

When he left the law firm, Morgan sought reimbursement for continuing legal education costs and associated bar fees. The request was denied and Morgan took the matter to court.

Frivolous conduct is defined in New York codes, rules and regulations as an action “wholly devoid of basis in law or fact and which cannot be supported by a reasonable argument in favor of the extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” Town wrote.

“Seen in this light, the facts before this Court clearly show that Plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be construed as anything other than frivolous conduct,” Town wrote.

“Continuing legal education requirements and associated bar fees, while undoubtedly essential to maintaining licensure, are personal obligations of the attorney rather than discretionary expenses incurred in the conduct directly from its affairs. This interpretation is consistent with prevailing case law that these costs are borne by the individual licensee rather than the employer, unless explicitly agreed otherwise,” she wrote.

“In this case, the terms of the employee handbook requiring prior approval were not met, and the language of the handbook does not reasonably extend to cover such expenses,” she wrote.

“Plaintiff’s argument that these expenses should be considered reimbursable business expenses attempts to expand existing law in a manner that is not supported by any legal precedent or reasonable interpretation of the employee handbook,” she wrote.

“This assertion therefore lacks legitimate basis in law or fact to change existing legal standards regarding what constitutes reimbursable business expenses under the employee handbook. Thus, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s immediate action constitutes frivolous conduct,” Town wrote.

(email protected) / (585) 232-2035