This website documents the legal malpractice of Memphis attorney Richard Glassman and the lawyers at the law firm Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C.

1. Richard Glassman commits legal malpractice by letting time limits run in plaintiff’s medical malpractice case and then conceals it from his client.

 Glassman and his lawyer-daughter Lauran Glassman-Stimac fraudulently concealed from their client the fact they had let the statute of limitations run, in violation of their ethical duty to promptly notify their client of their negligence. 

See paragraph 16 of the lawsuit for legal malpractice filed against Glassman that is in this PDF

Glassman at age 78 years old in 2024 is too old to be a trial attorney. PDF

Glassman has lost every malpractice case he has tried - making him 0-17. No lawyer in the State of Tennessee has such an awful record.

2. Glassman partners Ed Wallis and Lewis Lyons, who typically handle minor cases such as defending insurance companies in slip and fall cases, botch class action where they represented a class of elderly African-Americans whose homes were damaged by an explosion at a Memphis chemical plant. 

 This settlement by Wallis and Lyons gave homeowners virtually nothing. The settlement was so poor that Wallis and Lyons proposed $26,000 in attorneys’ fees for themselves while paying only $300 to the three named plaintiffs. 


As part of this settlement, plaintiffs’ counsel will apply for attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed $26,000 and reimbursement of expenses up to $______. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel will ask the Court to award a $300.00 incentive payment to each of the named plaintiffs in this action for their services and benefits to the Class.

(This excerpt is from the notice of settlement in Cox vs Penn A Kem, Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, docket no. 003961-15.)

3. Federal judge orders partners Robert Cox and Ronna Kinsella to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for appearing in court where they were not admitted to practice law. 


4. Glassman runs shadow law firm by representing nurses and nursing homes in Memphis while advertising for plaintiff cases in Kentucky to sue nurses and nursing homes.

See where the Glassman firm makes disparaging remarks about nursing homes, the very industry they represent.

5. Richard Glassman commits legal malpractice when he negligently drafts a release arising out of a lawsuit, causing his client to be sued again. Federal judge rules that Glassman could have drafted the release to have excluded the second claim.

Here Glassman defended an accounting firm in a malpractice case. He was hit with a jury verdict of $8 million and settled the case on appeal. He attempted to draft a release to protect his client from another lawsuit but failed to do so correctly, resulting in malpractice and the plaintiff bringing a second lawsuit against the defendant (his client).

See p. 10 of the federal judge's ruling in this PDF

6. Firm attorney Lori Keen commits legal malpractice in defense of trucking company that offered to settle case for $350,000 and was hit with a jury verdict of over $2.5 million.

Keen made a misrepresentation of fact by telling the jury in opening statement that the trucking company had “accepted responsibility from day 1.” Plaintiff’s attorney was able to expose Keen’s false statement by calling the trucking company’s safety director who admitted that Keen’s statement was not true and that in fact the trucking company had denied it was at fault until just a few days before trial.

Compounding this malpractice was Keen’s failure to object to the jury verdict form and her failure to raise this issue in her motion for a new trial, as she was required to do. The Tennessee Court of Appeals held,

In its brief, ASF argues that the jury’s award for loss of consortium should be invalidated because Mrs. Malone’s loss of consortium claim appeared on the jury verdict form as two blanks: (1) “Loss of Services of Julius Tyrone Malone,” for which the jury awarded $60,000; and (2) “Loss of Companionship and Acts of Love and Affection,” for which the jury awarded $75,000. As noted above above, ASF neither objected to the jury verdict form, nor raised the issue in its motion for a new trial. As such, the question of whether the jury’s awards for loss of services and loss of companionship are duplicative are waived (emphasis supplied.)

See p. 34 of the decision from the Court of Appeals in this PDF. (A different law firm was brought in the handle the appeal, but it was too late to undo the damage done by Keen and the Glassman law firm.)

 This incompetence is particularly remarkable considering that the Glassman firm claims to have expertise in defending trucking/transportation companies.


7. Richard Glassman commits legal malpractice during trial and loses case on appeal. 

Here Richard Glassman lost a medical malpractice case at trial.  

Glassman filed an appeal in this case from this jury verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. The Tennessee Court of of Appeals ruled that Glassman waived and could not raise the issue of whether the doctor's lawyer made an improper opening statement because Glassman did not ask for a mistrial at the time of the statement. The Court of Appeals rejected the appeal and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. (See pages 17-20 in this link.)


8. Glassman, who has been sued more times that any lawyer in the State of Tennessee for cheating partners and associates out of fees, is ruled personally liable in the amount of $450,000 for depriving associate attorney in his office of rightful fee with Trial Judge finding that Glassman "misinformed the Court" in his testimony. In other words, the Trial Judge ruled that Glassman deceived the Court. 

See p. 14 in this PDF

9. Glassman loses accounting malpractice case and jury rules his client is liable for $8 million - Glassman is called out for making "blatantly false" statements to the Court.  

See p. 3 of this PDF

10. Travelers Insurance and F.F.E. vs Glassman - Robert Cox commits legal malpractice multiple times in one case.  

Here partner Robert Cox and the Glassman law firm were sued in a legal malpractice case by their trucking company client and its insurance company, Travelers, where:  

A. Cox consistently and repeatedly failed to interview his own client - the truck driver - and secure his co-operation. (para 7); 

B. Cox filed an answer on behalf of the truck driver, even though the driver had not been served with the suit papers, without the knowledge, consent, or authority, of the driver or the trucking company. (para 11);

C. Cox never even checked to see if the driver had been served with the suit papers. (para 11-13)

Because the driver was never served with the suit papers, he declined to submit himself to discovery. As a result, the Court issued sanctions against the driver, consisting of summary judgment against him. The Court then granted summary judgment against the trucking company based on its vicarious liability for its driver, leaving  no way for the trucking company to defend itself. (para 11-13)


11. Glassman loses plaintiff's medical malpractice case on summary judgment. Tennessee Court of Appeals admonishes Glassman for failing to abide by the rules of appellate procedure. 

Glassman represented a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. The trial judge tossed the case before trial, finding Glassman presented no evidence to support his client's claim, and granted the doctor's motion for summary judgment. Glassman appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case and admonished Glassman for the way he handled the appeal, stating, 

"All too often litigants ignore Rule 24(a) and include, in the appellate record, every trial court filing no matter how irrelevant or extraneous.  In doing so, the parties place upon this court a duty that falls to them, i.e., to prepare (note - prepare is bold faced) the appellate record.....  Had the parties adhered to the rules of appellate procedure .......our record would have been much more manageable, and this court would not have had to sift through numerous volumes in order to find the filings that are relevant to the issues presented. 

  See duncanopn.pdf  (pages  4-5.) 


For more malpractice by this firm see