Robert C. Gottlieb & Associates, PLLC v. Doud

Background

Robert C. Gottlieb & Associates, PLLC sued its former client, Laurence F. Doud III, for breach of contract. Doud had signed a retainer agreement with Gottlieb & Janey LLP, a predecessor firm, to represent him in a criminal case. A later modification set a final payment of $450,000 for legal services related to the criminal trial and related issues, but both agreements stated that forensic-accountant fees were separate from the firm’s legal fees and were to be paid directly by Doud.

Gottlieb and Doud retained Matson Driscoll & Damico, LPP to provide forensic-accounting services. Doud paid an initial $10,000 retainer through Gottlieb, which forwarded the payment to MDD. Gottlieb alleged that MDD performed substantial work and that its partner testified at Doud’s trial, but that Doud refused to pay MDD’s later invoices. MDD later began arbitration against Gottlieb and Doud, seeking $141,061.60 from each. Gottlieb and MDD settled MDD’s claims, including the claims against Doud, and Gottlieb alleged that the settlement preserved its rights against Doud.

Doud removed Gottlieb’s state-court lawsuit to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on its allegations.

Court’s Analysis

Applying New York law, the court explained that a breach-of-contract claim requires allegations of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages. The court found that Gottlieb adequately alleged all four elements. The agreements allegedly required Doud to pay forensic-accountant expenses separately from legal fees; Gottlieb performed its obligation by representing Doud at trial; Doud allegedly failed to pay MDD; and Gottlieb alleged that Doud’s failure caused it to incur arbitration-related expenses and settle with MDD for $141,061.60.

Doud characterized Gottlieb’s claim as one for indemnification. The court stated that it did not need to decide that issue because the breach-of-contract claim was plausibly pleaded. The court nevertheless concluded that the allegations also plausibly supported implied indemnification. It reasoned that the attorney-client relationship is essentially a principal-agent relationship, that Doud allegedly had responsibility for paying the expert, and that Gottlieb was allegedly compelled to pay MDD’s fees after Doud failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos DENIED Doud’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the parties to appear for a conference on August 13, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.