This website is for informational purposes only concerning the legal malpractice of Memphis attorney Richard Glassman and his partners at Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C., who represent CNA Insurance Company, AIG, and many trucking companies. This site is not authorized by any member of that firm. This site is not intended for commercial purposes or for any reason other than informational ones.

1. Syble Carter vs Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle, and Cox - Richard Glassman commits legal malpractice and is sued for fraudulently concealed it from from his client. 

Here Richard Glassman and his lawyer-daughter, Lauren Glassman-Stimac, let the statute of limitations run in a plaintiff's medical malpractice case where they represented the patient/plaintiff. Worse yet, they are sued for fraudulently concealing from their client the fact they had let the statute of limitations run, in violation of their ethical duty to promptly notify their client of their negligence.  



PDF (para 15-16)  


2. Travelers Insurance and F.F.E. vs Robert Cox and the Glassman firm - Robert Cox commits legal malpractice. 

Here partner Robert Cox and the law firm were sued in a legal malpractice case by their trucking company client and its insurance company, Travelers, where: 

A. Cox consistently and repeatedly failed to interview his own client - the truck driver - and secure his co-operation. (para 7); 

B. Cox filed an answer on behalf of the truck driver, even though the driver had not been served with the suit papers, without the knowledge, consent, or authority, of the driver or the trucking company. (para 11);

C. Cox never even checked to see if the driver had been served with the suit papers. (para 11-13)

Because the driver was never served with the suit papers, he declined to submit himself to discovery. As a result, the Court issued sanctions against the driver, consisting of summary judgment against him. The Court then granted summary judgment against the trucking company based on its vicarious liability for its driver, leaving  no way for the trucking company to defend itself. (para 11-13)


PDF 


3. Bradley vs Laura Bishop, M.D. - Richard Glassman commits legal malpractice during trial and loses case on appeal.  

Here Richard Glassman lost a medical malpractice case at trial. (He has lost every medical malpractice case he has ever tried - making him 0-13.) 

Glassman filed an appeal in this case from this jury verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. The Tennessee Court of of Appeals ruled that Glassman waived and could not raise the issue of whether the doctor's lawyer made an improper opening statement because Glassman did not ask for a mistrial at the time of the statement. The Court of Appeals rejected the appeal and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. (pages 17-20.)
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/bradleychristyopn.pdf

4. Glassman loses plaintiff's medical malpractice case on summary judgment - Tennessee Court of Appeals admonishes Glassman for failing to abide by the rules of appellate procedure. 

Glassman represented a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. The trial judge tossed the case before trial, finding Glassman presented no evidence to support his client's claim, and granted the doctor's motion for summary judgment. Glassman appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case and admonished Glassman for the way he handled the appeal, stating, 

"All too often litigants ignore Rule 24(a) and include, in the appellate record, every trial court filing no matter how irrelevant or extraneous.  In doing so, the parties place upon this court a duty that falls to them, i.e., to prepare (note - prepare is bold faced) the appellate record.....  Had the parties adhered to the rules of appellate procedure .......our record would have been much more manageable, and this court would not have had to sift through numerous volumes in order to find the filings that are relevant to the issues presented. 
 
  https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/duncanopn.pdf  (pages  4-5.) 

5. Glassman personally ruled personally liable for $450,000 for depriving associate attorney in his office of rightful fee - Trial Judge enters order finding that Glassman "misinformed the Court" in his testimony. 


PDF (p. 14)  


6.  Glassman loses accounting malpractice case and jury rules his client is liable for $7,986,779. - Glassman is called out for making "demonstrably false" statements to the Court.  


PDF (p.2) 


7. Coming soon - federal judges issue orders to show cause against partners Carl Wyatt and Robert Cox for failing to comply with their orders.