Scarinci Hollenbeck LLP, Defendant

So the Dark Side touts former HUMC attorney Donald Scarinci as some sort of whistle blower on the Hoboken Municipal Hospital Authority (HMHA) because he flounced off in a huff on July 16 grumbling about the hospital's "engineered bankruptcy".

Funny, but the grumbling GA is hearing is about Donald Scarinci and his less-than-stellar record of honest legal practice.

One simply has to check Vorhees' New Jersey Legal Malpractice Blog with regard to the case of Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff vs. Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, Defendant.

GA's no fan of legal mumbo-jumbo, which is why I pal around with Not-Stempler, my Legal Department.

But he's busy today, so I'm on my own.

It seems that Scarinci was sued by his former malpractice insurance company, Navigators, because Scarinci hadn't disclosed the existence of a claim on a case they'd defended for Scarinci,  a case the latter had settled because of his deceitful conduct.

The case,  Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff vs. Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, Defendant, was heard in Federal Court.

The court ruled against Scarinci.
The District Court found that the Scarinci firm knew, well before the June 14, 2008 inception date of the policy, that their actions (e.g., withholding material information) were acts, errors and omissions likely to lead to claims being made against them. This knowledge was the salient factor in the “prior knowledge” analysis mandated by Colliers Lanard.

The District Court ruled that Navigators was entitled to summary judgment adjudicating that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Scarinci Hollenbeck in the “underlying” case, and ruled that Navigators was entitled to reimbursement from Scarinci for the costs it expended with regard to defense of the “underlying” case.
 And the federal judge's condemnation of the Scarinci 'style' of  litigation was unusually harsh:

“Defendants’ apparent failure to appreciate this feature of the policy is presumably the reason for their ad hominem characterization of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s arguments before this Court (discussing Plaintiff’s ‘inexplicable position’, its ‘reckless effort to prevail’ in this action, its unjustified reliance on a ‘tortured and relentless history of threats and allegations,’ its ‘bad faith’ in its dealings with this Court and its ‘breach of duty of candor with this Court,’ its ‘novel if not frivolous argument’ in this action, and its ‘overwhelming bad faith in dealing with its insured’)”

Obviously, that type of language and argument did not “fly” with the District Court.

The lesson for all litigation attorneys here is as follows:

(1) You should address the central issue.

(2) When you are desperate, no matter how desperate you are for an argument, you should not resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling, something not appreciated by most Courts.

Ad hominem attacks.  

Sounds familiar.

Here's what Scarinci said in court papers he filed on September 13:

 The rush to place the mantle of credibility on this person on behalf of Zimmer's opponents reeks of politics.

Media, do your due diligence. Hold off on anointing the Saint.


  1. No surprises here. (And how many contracts with the City of Hoboken over the years?) Thanks, GA, for presenting some telling examples.

    Sounds like he withheld salient information on the renewal application for professional liability/E&O coverage-? (Among other big no-no's.)

    Maybe 10 yrs. ago, an interesting article appeared in the NYT Science section. All about a psychiatrist in NJ (Essex Co., MBB recalls), whose flourishing private practice was limited exclusively to attorneys. A certain constellation of symptoms/pathology seemed prevalent, apparently. Infantile omnipotence & narcissism, for example. (Not unlike some key machine pols, yes?)

    Thank you, Not-Larry, for being an apparent exception. HMHA's Toni T. also.


Post a Comment