The $1.5M wife
August 20, 2008
Normally, a lawyer will receive a nice contingency fee in a medical malpractice suit. In this case, the lawyer got a new wife instead — but for a hefty price.
The Mississippi Supreme Court recently affirmed a $1.5 million verdict against Mississippi lawyer Ronald Henry Pierce for having an affair with his client’s wife, the ABA Law Journal reports.
Ernest Cook was not pleased, to say the least, when he learned that Pierce was having an affair with his wife, Kathleen.
The Cooks had hired Pierce to represent them and their son in a med-mal case in 1997. After Ernest Cook moved to California in 2000 — but while Pierce was still representing the Cooks and their son — Pierce and Kathleen had an affair, the Aug. 14 opinion states (PDF).
Pierce was fired, and the Cooks eventually divorced in 2002. Pierce and Kathleen later married and had a child.
Ernest Cook decided to get even the American way. He sued Pierce for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and alienation of affection, and won a $1.5M verdict in 2006.
Something tells me Pierce might have been better off with the contingency fee….
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Sphere: Related ContentComments
3 Responses to “The $1.5M wife”
Got something to say?
-
Business
Business posts- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- It’s all for the kids
- Will CEG shareholders support EDF’s bid?
- Battle of the Beltway
- Any price is too high if you’re broke
- Maryland: 10th-fastest internet speeds in nation
- Where the deals are
- Phelps named Sportsman of the Year
- Can SUV sales make a comeback?
Law
Law posts- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- A case of mistaken identity
- Beware of the blogging juror
- Inmate sought to intervene in Wells Fargo suit
- What’s behind that law firm’s headcount?
- Law blog round-up
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- A history of football in Baltimore, courtesy of a lawsuit
- Baltimore crime stuck at 12th-worst in U.S.
- First a mongrel Mercedes, now a botched Bentley
Recent Posts
- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- A case of mistaken identity
- It’s all for the kids
Recent Comments
- Jacki Pearlman: Unfortunately, the game will not live up to it’s hype. I am a diehard Redskins fan after being...
- Isolde: Anybody remember GreedyAssociates.com? That’s basically a forum for ads and political weirdos now. Why?...
- Liz Farmer: Thanks for chiming in guys. Ed, you are exactly right. I did not include this in my original post but...
- Rick Rigini: Did you ever read the children’s book Norman the Doorman?
- Ed Waters Jr.: In many articles, it seems the writers tend to overlook the fact that some people need an SUV (or...
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.
Not proud of how we came together, but proud to have her. Want to read about the chld’s med-mal case (I never made a penny on); see Cook v. Children’s Med. Group, 756 So. 2d 734 (Miss. 1999).
Another “proud” moment for lawyers. Yuck.
Jeff is right. Not a proud moment. This one is doubly not proud. As the $1.5 mill wife, I was not an attorney when these events transpired. Now I am one.
I hope this is a lesson to young people aspiring to one day practice law. They should think ahead as to what impression their actions could leave on their profession in the future.