BLosses arising from a contract tort suit by a subcontractor on its Second Avenue subway work in New York City, and a decade-long prevailing wage class action by ‘non-union flaggers, could have been avoided if Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders law had provided competent representation, Judlau Construction claims in negligence suit in .
The subway station’s adverse verdict reached New York state court late last year, and the prevailing wage case was upheld on appeal in 2022. Tthe verdicts would have gone in his favor, pExcept for Troutman Pepper’s sloppy work and mistakes, the contractor claims.
In one instance, Judlau accused Troutman Pepper of delaying filing materials with the court and sending an inexperienced junior staff member to handle critical tasks and court motions.
In another instance, the contractor claims that a Troutman Pepper executive handling the cases, who is also named as a defendant, had a conflict of interest because he was allegedly serving as a staff attorney for a Judlau competitor. simultaneously .
Troutman Pepper, in a statement, denied this the claims and has hired a law firm to represent him. “The lawsuit has no merit, and we will present our defenses in court at the appropriate time,” he said.
While most law firms are hit with malpractice claims at some point, according to the American Bar Association, such lawsuits are not common in civil court construction disputes. For his malpractice claim, Judlau is represented by Jonathan D. Lupkin, a veteran commercial attorney who recently joined Rottenstreich Farley’s law practice.
In the larger of the two cases in questionnon-union project employees used as traffic indicators in 2017 led to class action lawsuit in New York state court against Judlau, claiming that they were cheated by not receiving prevailing wages as required by law.
Lawyers for the flagmen, who were paid $15 to $18 an hour with no benefits, hailed the verdict when it was upheld on appeal in April 2022 as a “major victory.” Going wages would have been $37 to $41 an hour with nearly an equal amount per hour in benefits.
An appeals court ruled that flagmen’s role in protecting the safety of construction crews and the public, including working near equipment as it moved from one site to another, it qualified them for prevailing wages, their attorney said.
All the flags that worked for Judlau New York public works projects since April 2011, including flaggers subcontracted through an employment firm, were automatically covered by the court rulings, which resulted in the $44 million judgment .
Judlau, one of the New York City area’s most prolific infrastructure contractors, had previously been forced to retroactively pay wages to workers who had been hired as flaggers. A 2016 US Department of Labor Consent Order forced Judlau pay signalmen who worked for it on a Manhattan street reconstruction project $1.1 million in overtime pay.
In the class action, Troutman Pepper failed to bring critical evidence to the court’s attention and neglected to properly investigate the matter, Judlau claims. If it had, the law firm would have shown that the contractor never used the flaggers for the salaried workers’ duties.
“This ruling was an unfair benefit for work that was never done,” Judlau argues, “and could never have been done undetected for more than a decade on major public infrastructure projects that were consistently and regularly monitored by the main contractor and municipal government representatives as well as independently monitored daily by union representatives.”
Additionally, Troutman Pepper left Judlau in the dark about important turning points in the case, such as certification of a class action, summary judgment of liability, or that damages would be determined by a special appointed arbitrator by the judge, says the contractor.
Segona Avinguda subway box
The other adverse and costly verdict was very different.
In this case, a joint venture, Scalamandre/Oliveira, was a subcontractor to Judlau on its $258 million building metro station finish and mechanical, electrical and plumbing work. It sought damages for Judlau’s cost overruns and also named Judlau’s bond and insurers and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the New York City Transit Authority as defendants.
The joint venture consisted of Peter Scalamandre & Sons, based in Freeport, New York, and Oliveira Contracting, based in Albertson, New York, and Judlau eventually wound up.
The joint venture’s $14 million contract involved concrete slabs and walls, and work on the project was completed months late in 2014. Judlau, the joint venture claimed in a 2016 state court complaint, could not coordinate shop work and drawings, failed to get its rebar subcontractors to deliver and work on time, and failed to provide the cranes it promised to bring to move materials and did not provide adequate access.
The joint venture sought $10.1 million from Judlau for all the alleged additional costs and delays.
In an initial response to the lawsuit in 2016, by Troutman Pepper, Judlau denied the counter-allegations and counterclaimed for damages against the joint venture subcontractor.
After years of motions and discovery, a judge held a non-jury trial where the two adversaries presented 320 pieces of evidence and a total of eight witnesses. Last November, Supreme Court Justice Andrew Borrok ruled against Judlau, criticizing its overall management but especially its management of rebar supply and coordination.
“The credible evidence unequivocally demonstrated,” Borrok wrote, that the joint venture “in no way delayed the completion of the project.” Several witnesses and evidence presented by Judlau were not convincing, he added.
Last December, indicating that the matter was not yet litigated, Judlau, his guarantor and the insurers notified the court that they were switching attorneys in the case from Troutman Pepper to Seyfarth Shaw. In January, that law firm launched an appeal against Borrok’s decision and verdict.
This month, Judlau went public with his claims against Troutman Pepper. Most explosively, the law firm manager in charge of both cases “was simultaneously and improperly representing Judlau as Troutman’s partner” in the two critical cases “while also acting as executive vice president and general counsel of one of Judlau’s competitors.” “—one that Judlau “was directly adverse to … in contentious arbitration.”
These “dual roles constituted a clear breach” of professional obligations due to the conflict, Judlau alleges.
