Seller's attorney swindles apt

Sounds like this could be "tortious interference", defined as "an intentional, damaging intrusion on another's potential business relationship" You may have a legal case against this attorney.

Furthermore, it is probably an ethical violation, reportable to the bar association.

What pjc said. Lawyers are allowed very little slack, but they do have to be turned in. If you even think there's been a breach of ethics, contact:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway, 2nd Fl.
New York, NY 10006
212-401-0800

That's for the First Judicial Department (Manhattan and the Bronx.) If not those two counties, see http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Related%20Groups/lawyer.htm.

The lawyer's actions sound sleazy. I would definitely report him, but please understand that doing so will not get you the apartment. The apartment is GONE.

Also, meant to say, deal sheet means squat. The problem isn't the seller selling to someone else per se.

You may end up feeling lucky you were prevented from buying now.

Report him to the Bar

Oh and give us his name so he can't do this again.

no, don't post his name. The last thing you want is for the lawyer to find this thread and file some stupid lawsuit against you for revenge.

Oh, pjc, another thing. Reporting the guy does not involve you in litigation, does not get your name in a court record, nor anything like that. That's regardless of whether he's found to have done anything wrong.

The apt might not be gone yet If you felt strongly enough you might be able to get an injunction preventing closing.

But as NWT said, someday you might be happy you lost this deal (although if it was so cheap that someone stole it from you, maybe not)

I hate hearing stories like this. Tortious interference with a contract sounds about right. Please do the rest of the world a favor and report this attorney, not only as directed by someone above, but also to the Ethics Committee of the NYS Bar Association (www.nysba.org should help you find the appropriate contact person). It's been a while since I looked at the canons of professional ethics but I am positive this is a gross violation. If you really really want the apartment, I agree with pjc that a judge might grant you an injunction, though it sounds as though you'd have to light a fire under your own attorney first. However, would you want to do a deal with a seller who's as sleazy as his lawyer?

The seller's lawyer was dumb enough to tell you about this? They could have just said that the seller's have changes their minds. Dumb...

The seller's lawyer was dumb enough to tell you about this? They could have just said that the seller's have changes their minds. Dumb...

The seller's lawyer was dumb enough to tell you about this? They could have just said that the seller's have changes their minds. Dumb...

hmmm -- sorry for the stuck button triple play all

You already have an attorney so why on earth are you asking a bunch of clueless laymen for advice? The seller's attorney doesn't represent you, so I fail to see how this is a breach of legal ethics. (Breach of business ethics, maybe.) The seller might have a claim if the attorney doesn't advise him/her to obtain independent counsel, etc., but that's really none of your concern. File a complaint if it will make you happy to inconvenience the lawyer, but really it's a waste of both of your time. Suing for tortious interference is a bit tough considering you didn't have a contract yet, so it really has to be culpable conduct -- outbidding you probably doesn't get you there. Then again, I'm just another random internet poster, so you'd be wise to ignore me, too.

Oh, and the funniest response was the triple suggestion above that the lawyer was dumb to tell you the truth. If he/she had lied, you might actually have some basis for filing an ethics complaint.

I say again that I hate hearing stories like this.

Without giving legal advice [insert smiley here] I can tell you the definition of tortious interference, and direct you to an attorney's obligations under the Code.

Tortious interference with contractual or business relationships is a tort in which the defendant: (1) acted improperly and without privilege; (2) acted purposefully and maliciously with intent to injure; (3) induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue a business relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) caused the plaintiff financial injury. There need not be a contract, since a "business relationship" is traditionally defined very broadly by the courts.

I don't believe there has been a substantial change in the elements of this tort since I last taught it in the fall '08 semester.

You will find the NYS Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys, along with its Ethical Considerations, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM. EC 1-5; DR 1-102 [1200.3]; EC 5-2; EC 5-4; and DR 5-101 [1200.20] may be of particular interest. The Code has been changed quite recently in some respects, but not in regard to self-dealing and conflict of interest on the part of attorneys.

Filing a complaint will do more than inconvenience the seller's attorney or make you feel better. It would protect others.

It does seem like sleazy behaviour on the part of the attorney & I would report it; maybe there is a violation, maybe not (no lawyer here) but at least I'd feel better.

Do you have proof? Do you know for sure that the atty is buying it?

Did you get an email from them saying same so that you can use it?

Jesus, get over it - find another place and move on with your life. SUING? TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE? C'mon people, that's what's wrong with our society - too many lawsuits. Let's stop the insanity.

Nobody said sue.

Nobody said sue? How else do you claim tortious interference or seek an injunction... It's ridiculous. Even the cut and paste job above by generalogoun from some Restatement of Torts is a joke. Do you act "purposefully and maliciously with intent to injure" when you outbid someone? Get a grip. You hate hearing stories like this? Well, I had hearing people advocating frivolous lawsuits for deals that fall through.

Regarding the Code of Professional Responsibility, I stand by what I said earlier. Self-dealing is an issue between attorney and client, not third parties with whom the lawyer has no client relationship. Moreover, the Code lists what the lawyer can do to avoid a problem (disclosing, recommending independent counsel, getting consent, etc.) We have no way of knowing if that was done because OP isn't the client! Sorry, filing a complaint won't protect others any more than filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Victim? Really? There are a bazillion apartments on the market. This creep just gave you a gift disguised as a swindle.. You can send condolences to him in a year when the price has dropped another 20%.

First, NY has a new code of professional responsibility, effective April 1 , 2009, so no sense in citing the old DRs unless this happened pre-April 1.

Second, I can't see how this is tortious inteference. The attorney didn't act with "intent to injure". He bought the apt because he wanted to live it- not to screw you over.

Third, I don't see what the attorney did wrong ethically. He has no duty to you. His duty is solely to the seller. If he offered the seller more money, why wouldn't that be in the seller's best interest? Absent some showing that he lied about giving you an opportunity to counteroffer (or something like that), I think you need to articulate better what the attorney did wrong. Of course, it'd be a different story had this been your attorney.

I stated that this "could be" tortious interference, although I am not sure. The attorney became aware of a verbal business agreement embodied in a term sheet, and intentionally disrupted the relationship. In other words, he used inside knowledge to steal an opportunity from the would-be buyer. Is this simply healthy competition, or not? I don't know.

As for the ethical question - of course, most questions of professional responsibility deal with the relationship between the attorney and client, and in this case, the attorney is obviously giving his client a better deal than he otherwise would get. Of course he needs to resign as attorney (the conflict of interest is obvious). But is that the end of the inquiry? I don't know. All I know is that it fails the smell test - it certainly puts the entire practice of law in disrepute (as if it is reputable already) if a lawyer can take confidential information obtained in the course of working on a transaction and use it to screw over another party to the transaction, for the attorney's own personal benefit.

This thread is a great example as to why you should never take legal advice from anonymous losers on the internet. Such a shame. All of you are just a bunch of wannabe lawyers.

The theme: Does the attorney truly have responsibility only to his client? No. Attorneys have a responsibility to their profession as well, and that responsibility appears to have been violated here.

(1) The seller's broker made no attempt to contact us to solicit a counter-offer. Further, the seller's attorney made a deal (likely signing a contract himself, for all I know) without communicating to us or to our attorney that the deal was off (i.e., that we would not be receiving our own contract). It's not like we got outbid.

(2) The seller's attorney, when confronted by our attorney, said to him, (quite smugly) "So what? What are you going to do about it?" The facts and proof of this transaction's taking place are not at issue.

(3) To those of you who have told me to "move on" or "find another place"... While I intend to do so, I'm not really interested in your opinion.

I have written a letter to the New York Times, and plan on writing the NYBar as well. I've kissed the apartment goodbye--while I don't think there are a bazillion apartments out there that match what I'm looking for, I will continue to be patient.

What a sob story. Yeah, write to the TImes about your "quite smugly" speaking antagonist, if that will make you feel better. You may feel victimized, violated and swindled -and now hurt by comments on this board. But trust me 111, this is going to save you a lot of money. Its the best cure when you're feeling a little down.

Spinnaker: I have thicker skin than you would think, but your comments are dumb. I'm not trying to "feel better" about speculating on price. How is this going to save me (or anyone) money? Just because you think the market's going down more than it has?

When a market price is set, (to oversimplify) there's basically an equal number of people who think it's going down than who think it's going up. You vote "down". Plenty of people would disagree.