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. This site is not authorized by any member of that firm. This site is not intended for commercial purposes or any other reason.

CNA Professional Liability attorneys in Memphis, TN, Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle and Cox - charged with the responsibility of representing lawyers sued for legal malpractice - have themselves committed numerous acts of serious legal malpractice in the last three years, have been the subjects of orders to show cause by federal judges for disobeying court orders, and have been sued by their former lawyers over fees: 

I. Carter v Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle and Cox (This is a legal malpractice case filed against CNA lawyers Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle and Cox on July 10, 2015, in Obion County, TN. Complaint is attached.) 

Memphis attorney Richard Glassman and his daughter, Memphis attorney Lauran Glassman-Stimac, an inexperienced first year associate, represented Plaintiff Syble Carter in a serious medical malpractice case (health care liability action) against a doctor who allegedly performed a thyroidectomy in a negligent manner, causing damage to Ms. Carter's vocal cords. Richard Glassman should have been closely supervising his novice lawyer-daughter, but he was not supervising her in the slightest, as shown below.   

The doctor filed an Answer to the malpractice suit, asserting plaintiff's attorney did not obtain proper service of process on him. Had Ms. Glassman-Stimac not been so inexperienced, she would have easily seen the problem, and could have cured it quickly by obtaining proper service on the doctor within one year, as provided by Tennessee law. 

Although the doctor's Answer clearly put Ms. Glassman-Stimac on notice that her lawsuit had a potentially fatal defect, she did absolutely nothing to address this problem until it was too late - one year later - after the doctor moved for summary judgment on the grounds the statute of limitations had run. Richard Glassman, who claims to be an expert on legal malpractice, exercised absolutely no supervision over his inexperienced lawyer-daughter, and his failure to supervise contributed to the running of the statute of limitations.

When the doctor moved for summary judgment, did Lauran Stimac-Glassman or Richard Glassman promptly notify their client of this major development? Such prompt notification was clearly required by Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct Rule, Preamble, which states in part, “In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt, and diligent. A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation.”

Or, did Ms. Glassman-Stimac or Mr. Glassman comply Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a) (3) which provides, “A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.”?

First, consider that Richard Glassman claims on his firm website to be knowledgeable on the subject of “professional malpractice” and “legal ethics.” However, it hardly takes a legal expert to know the duty of a fiduciary to the client under these circumstances. The FIRST duty of Mr. Glassman was to promptly notify the client that the defendant doctor had filed a motion for summary judgment and that her lawsuit was in serious jeopardy of being dismissed with prejudice because of his and his daughter's negligence.

Instead, Mr. Glassman fraudulently concealed his - and his daughter's - professional negligence from their client Ms. Syble Carter for 6 months. Ms. Carter, upon discovery of the negligence and fraudulent concealment of Lauran Stimac-Glassman and Richard Glassman, filed a lawsuit for legal malpractice and fraud against Glassman, Wyatt,Tuttle and Cox, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for negligence and fraudulent concealment .(See the attached Complaint in its entirety, and especially the allegations of fraud at paragraph 16 .) Also, note that Mr. Glassman never gave his client any explanation for fraudulently concealing this information for 6 months. (Complaint, para 16.)

II. Zander v. Katz, Sapper and Miller, LLP

 This was an accounting malpractice in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) where Richard Glassman represented the defendant accounting firm.

As the filings from the case demonstrate (see below), Mr. Glassman and lawyers in his firm committed numerous acts of legal malpractice.

 Glassman's firm filed a motion to amend which was denied sua sponte the same day because the motion was filed in violation of para 8 of the Initial Case Management Order which required a telephone consultation with the judge before a motion could be filed. (Docket Entry # 41 on PACER. Copy attached.)  The federal judge was clearly annoyed by this blatant violation of his court order and caustically observed in an Order denying the motion, “Instead," (of consulting on the motion by telephone as required by the court's order)," defendant has filed 37 pages of ' who shot John ' about the matter."

With a trial date rapidly approaching only three weeks away, Mr. Glassman belatedly filed a motion to supplement his expert disclosures. The federal judge denied this motion almost in its entirety, blistering Mr. Glassman findings such as: “From the outset, the record establishes that Defendants (read: Mr. Glassman) have not pursued discovery diligently.” "Despite being given more than a year in which to prosecute discovery, Defendants (read: Mr. Glassman) delayed initiating discovery eight months from removal of this case from state court and more than six months from the initial case management order." “Moreover, contrary to their claims, Defendants (read: Mr. Glassman) have not been exactly diligent in attempting to supplement their expert’s opinion.” "Defendants (read: Mr. Glassman) have not been diligent in their prosecution of discovery despite being given more than one and one half years to do so." (See "Order” entered by the Court on 6-6-14, Docket entry 180) Thus, Mr. Glassman did not properly prepare his case and the court entered an order severely limiting his expert's opinion. He then filed a motion to continue the rapidly approaching trial date. His motion for a continuance contained serious misrepresentations of material facts made to the federal judge. Mr. Glassman was called out for deliberate misrepresentations such as: 

A. claiming this was the first request for a continuance, where in actuality several requests for a continuance of the trial date had already been made by the Glassman firm. ("Those representations (read: Mr. Glassman's) are demonstrably false.")

B. claiming he had a state court case which conflicted with the existing federal trial date. However, counsel for the plaintiff checked with counsel for the parties in the state court case and determined that counsel in that case had no objection to a continuance, thus giving way for the Zander v Katz matter to go to trial in federal court. (In other words, Mr. Glassman contrived this state court case as an excuse to avoid going to trial in the federal court case, knowing full well the state court case was likely not going to trial.)

"Accordingly, defendants’ representation to this Court that the present motion constitutes their first attempt to obtain a continuance of the trial date is blatantly false." (See," Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Continue Trial Date.") Docket Entry 135, filed March 13, 2014.)  This document is attached.

Mr. Glassman also tried to get a continuance on the grounds that one of his long term partners had left the firm. This lawyer promptly sued Mr. Glassman for fees owed. This was the third time in recent years Mr. Glassman has been involved in litigation over a serious fee dispute with lawyers leaving his firm because of fee fights. In one case Mr. Glassman's firm - and Mr. Glassman personally, because he was the decision maker - were sued for cheating an associate lawyer out of a fee. The associate won a huge victory in this case against Mr. Glassman and his firm in the amount of $550,000, with the trial judge finding as a matter of fact that Mr. Glassman had "misinformed" the Court about certain facts during his testimony. (See Markowitz v Glassman, et. al., Chancery Court of Shelby County, TN) (Mr. Glassman had to settle the other two fee dispute cases.)

In the Nashville federal court case against the accounting firm, Mr. Glassman was forced to go to trial unprepared a few weeks later. His client, KSM Business Services, an affiliate company of Katz, Sapper and Miller, one of the top CPA and accountant firms in the country, insured by CNA, was hit with a $7.986 million jury verdict, where the jury remarkably awarded Plaintiff the entire amount demanded in the Complaint, handing Mr. Glassman a stinging rebuke (See Docket Entry # 222 - Jury Verdict Form - attached.)  

Coming soon:

1. Memphis attorney Robert Cox, at Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle and Cox caused his law firm to be sued for legal malpractice when he carelessly filed an Answer of behalf of a transportation (trucking) company, Frozen Food Express (" FFE "), AND its employee driver, admitting the defendant truck driver was an employee in the course and scope of his employment when the serious wreck occurred. Problem: the defendant driver was not in the course and scope of his employment, and Mr. Cox was not authorized to file an Answer on behalf of the truck driver.  

Mr. Cox's legal malpractice in admitting the driver was in the scope of his employment when he actually was not was a judicial admission, was binding, and therefore, could not be withdrawn.  Result: FFE sued Mr. Cox and his firm for legal malpractice because FFE was stuck with the negligent acts of the driver, even though he was outside the scope and course of his employment. CNA, the professional liability insurance carrier Mr. Cox's law firm, presumably had to pay FFE a substantial amount to settle.

As an interesting side note, Mr. Cox and members of his firm at Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle and Cox are members of the Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA) and claim to be experts in transportation/trucking litigation.

2. Attorney Robert Cox was ordered by a federal judge to show cause why sanctions should not imposed against him and his client, United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), for Mr. Cox's failure to comply with the court's order.    

3. Attorney Carl Wyatt was ordered by a federal judge to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him and his transportation (trucking company) client for Mr. Wyatt's failure to comply with the court's order.