Jack Hall owned a company with his two sons. They hired Russell Scudder as a chief operating officer, but when his performance became a danger to the company, Hall sought legal help from a defendant Wayne Judge so he could terminate Scudder. Wayne, declaring the employee contract with Scudder to be ambiguous, drafted a letter for Hall to send to Scudder that outlined his reasons. Hall and his sons unanimously voted to terminate Scudder without notice, only after which was Scudder was given the letter. Scudder was blindsided by the termination. Wayne said, based on his reading of the contract and plaintiff’s bylaws, the contract was ambiguous and Hall had the right to terminate Scudder. Hall prevailed, though they quickly reversed and discovered the contract entirely unambiguous, and that Hall did not cooperate with the contract’s terms.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to meet their initial burden of presenting evidence in admissible form, claiming they were well aware of the process in which to follow in order to legally fire the plaintiff. The problem was that Wayne Judge, who drafted the letter, had submitted support for Hall from the perspective of business and not of a lawyer examining realities. Hall claimed that the business was in jeopardy and terminating Scudder needed to happen immediately. Reacting to Hall’s urgency and in fear of the condition of the business, Wayne drafted the letter. Then it was the initial legal action taken against Scudder that was not in compliance with a standard of care. Wayne could not be motivated by Hall’s sense of urgency nor any kind of business interest, however it may be. Wayne failed to present solid reason and standards of care and has, in the false and hurried interpretation of the contract, failed.

Source: New York Malpractice Blog