A Catholic broadcasting company has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against one of D.C.’s biggest business law firms, alleging that its lawyers botched a television licensing deal, costing the company untold millions.
The North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation Inc. says that Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and its former partner, Howard J. Barr, blew the deadline for filing an appeal with the Federal Communications Commission, which “injured” the foundation “and caused it to suffer millions of dollars in damages.”
The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in D.C., also claims unspecified “other errors” by Barr and Womble Carlyle lawyers.
The rare legal malpractice suit pits the foundation against one of the nation’s biggest business law firms. Womble Carlyle, which was founded in North Carolina, employs more than 500 lawyers in 11 cities.
At the heart of the dispute is a failed effort to win broadcasting rights in suburban Las Vegas. The foundation, a Rhode Island nonprofit made up of Catholic laymen and laywomen, already holds licenses in several cities, broadcasting educational fare in Catholic schools as well as in prisons and jails. In 2002, the foundation retained Barr’s firm, Pepper & Corazzini, to handle its FCC legal work in D.C. Pepper & Corazzini was later absorbed by Womble Carlyle.
The foundation was going up against Clark County, Nev., for the broadcasting licenses. Clark County already had eight licenses in the Vegas market when it applied for the new station. The FCC eventually waived rules forbidding broadcasters to run more than four stations in a market and awarded Clark County’s application.
According to the suit, the foundation asked Barr and Womble Carlyle to file an appeal. Court records show the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case because the appeal wasn’t filed within the 30-day deadline.
Officials for the foundation didn’t respond to a request for comment. Barr couldn’t be reached for comment.
Womble Carlyle lawyer Bill Raper sent an e-mail saying his firm would “respond to this lawsuit in court,” but declined further comment.
