June 18, 2026  ·  Updated July 14, 2026

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the filing

SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting v. Goldstein and Price, L.C. Alleges $3.31 Million Verdict Due to Malpractice

SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC has initiated a lawsuit against its former legal representation, Goldstein and Price, L.C. (GP), alleging legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment in the handling of SCF's defense in prior litigation against Kevin D. Mogensen. The plaintiff contends that GP's mishandling of key trial procedures, particularly improper witness communication, led to significant sanctions and ultimately a substantial financial judgment against SCF (Compl. ¶6, ¶8).

Alleged Misconduct in Mogensen Trial

According to the complaint filed by SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC, Goldstein and Price, L.C. (GP) engaged in improper conduct during the January 2023 trial of the litigation case involving SCF. GP's attorney, Mr. Curtis, allegedly communicated details of the trial to SCF's witness, Scott Keehner, before he testified, thus violating the sequestration order set by the court (Compl. ¶24-26).

The trial court considered this breach as a severe violation, labeling it detrimental to the trial's integrity. As a sanction, the court struck SCF's pleadings, which effectively removed its ability to contest liability claims. Consequently, the jury was tasked solely with determining the amount of damages owed, without considering potential defenses on liability (Compl. ¶30).

As a result of the restricted focus on damages, the jury awarded a judgment of $3,310,000 to Mogensen, a figure that significantly exceeded GP's pre-verdict estimation of $750,000. The complaint argues that the communications made by GP's attorney fundamentally altered the course of the trial, leading to this unfavorable outcome for SCF (Compl. ¶35).

SCF contends that absent GP’s alleged misconduct, its liability defenses would have remained intact, potentially averting the multi-million dollar damages verdict. The complaint charges that GP's actions were directly causal to the adverse ruling and subsequent hefty financial liability imposed on SCF (Compl. ¶69, ¶72).

Financial Impact of Mogensen Verdict

The jury awarded Kevin Mogensen $3,310,000.00, a figure significantly exceeding the $750,000 pre-verdict estimation provided by Goldstein and Price, L.C. This discrepancy is highlighted in SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC's complaint against the law firm, which alleges that the firm misjudged the potential liability and failed to adequately prepare SCF for the substantial financial repercussions of the trial outcome (Compl. ¶34-35).

The legal expenses incurred during this protracted legal process were significant, with SCF seeking relief for the attorneys' fees and expenses amounting to over $600,000 billed by Goldstein and Price, L.C. for their services throughout the litigation. SCF seeks disgorgement of these fees, claiming that improper legal conduct resulted in unnecessary costs and contributed materially to the unfavorable outcomes in the case (Compl. ¶54, ¶82).

Parties Involved

The plaintiff in this legal malpractice and fiduciary breach case is SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. SCF operates out of Granite City, Illinois, where it specializes in barge logistics and transportation services. The company engaged the services of the defendant, Goldstein and Price, L.C., a law firm based in Missouri, specifically tasked with providing defense counsel in a prior litigation matter against Kevin D. Mogensen (Compl. ¶6).

Goldstein and Price, L.C., the defendant, is a Missouri-based law firm with its principal place of business in St. Louis. The firm was accused of sizable professional failings during its legal representation in the mentioned litigation matter. Allegations against Goldstein and Price include breaches related to malpractice, fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, arising from their representation of SCF in the aforementioned trial.

In addition to the plaintiff and defendant, various non-party individuals are associated with events leading up to this litigation. Kevin D. Mogensen, a non-party, was SCF's adversary in the prior courtroom battle where the misconduct allegedly occurred. Another non-party is Scott Keehner, identified as a witness in the Mogensen trial. The complaint also notes Dakota Garner, who is the plaintiff in a separate legal action involving SCF, and Ingram Barge Company LLC, an affiliate of SCF, which had previously been represented by GP (Compl. ¶50).

Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC has filed a legal malpractice claim against Goldstein and Price, L.C., rooted in alleged misconduct related to Illinois Rule of Evidence 615 during the trial proceedings. The lawsuit asserts that Goldstein and Price, through their attorney Mr. Curtis, breached this rule by improperly sharing trial details with SCF's witness Scott Keehner before his testimony. As a result, the court imposed sanctions by striking SCF's liability defenses, leaving the jury to consider damages alone. This sanction led to a substantial $3,310,000 jury verdict against SCF, which the complaint alleges could have been avoided but for the firm's actions (Compl. ¶24-30, ¶69-72).

Additionally, SCF contends that Goldstein and Price breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose a conflict of interest and neglecting to recommend the plaintiff seek independent legal counsel. The complaint alleges that GP's own improper communications during the underlying trial gave the firm a personal interest in the matter, a conflict GP did not disclose while it continued representing SCF (Compl. ¶49-50). Separately, the complaint alleges that GP is prosecuting Garner v. Ingram, No. 2026LA000176, against Ingram Barge Company LLC, a former GP client and an affiliate of SCF, without obtaining a conflict waiver (Compl. ¶52-53).

The allegations of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty center around these key issues, asserting that the improper actions of Goldstein and Price compromised the integrity of SCF's defense, leading to significant financial damages and loss of strategic legal positioning during the trial (Compl. ¶46, ¶71, ¶85).

Unjust Enrichment Claim

The complaint by SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC in the case against Goldstein and Price, L.C. includes a claim for unjust enrichment. SCF alleges that despite the alleged malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty on the part of GP, the law firm received over $600,000 in fees and expenses connected to the defense in the litigation (Compl. ¶54, ¶82).

According to the filing, SCF claims these fees were not justified as the legal representation provided was detrimental to SCF's interests. The unjust enrichment claim asserts that GP was financially rewarded for legal services that allegedly failed to meet the standard of care, ultimately resulting in a multi-million dollar judgment against SCF. The complaint describes how GP's actions, including the breach of the witness sequestration order, directly contributed to the court's decision to strike SCF's pleadings on liability, leading to the jury focusing solely on damages (Compl. ¶69, ¶71).

SCF contends that GP retained the $600,000 in fees despite the negative outcome of the litigation and urges for disgorgement of these fees as part of the relief sought. The complaint requests that any money paid to GP in connection with the action be returned, arguing that allowing GP to retain these funds would be inequitable under the circumstances (Compl. ¶85).

The claim for unjust enrichment within the larger context of the suit reflects SCF's position that GP's financial benefit was derived at the expense of providing a defense that was effectively compromised. SCF is seeking compensatory damages, disgorgement of all fees paid, prejudgment interest, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court (Compl. ¶72).

Distinctive Allegation: Conflict of Interest

The complaint by SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC against Goldstein and Price, L.C. alleges two conflicts of interest. First, it describes a "Prior Work Conflict": a personal-interest conflict arising from GP's own improper communications during the underlying trial, which GP allegedly failed to disclose while it continued representing SCF (Compl. ¶49-50). Second, the complaint alleges that GP is prosecuting Garner v. Ingram, No. 2026LA000176, against Ingram Barge Company LLC, a former GP client and an affiliate of SCF, without a conflict waiver (Compl. ¶52-53).

SCF claims that GP's failure to disclose these conflicts compromised its ability to effectively represent SCF's interests during the defense. The complaint emphasizes that an attorney's duty of loyalty is paramount, and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties may have affected the outcome of the trial and subsequent legal proceedings. These claims are central to SCF's assertions of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty (Compl. ¶49-50).

SCF argues that GP's conduct fell short of the standard expected from attorneys and contributed to SCF's unfavorable legal result, including the striking of its pleadings and a substantial monetary judgment against SCF. The purported conflict of interest forms part of the broader claims against GP, seeking disgorgement of over $600,000 in fees paid by SCF to GP, along with additional compensatory damages and relief (Compl. ¶82).

Relief Sought and Procedural Posture

In its complaint against Goldstein and Price, L.C. (GP), SCF Lewis and Clark Fleeting LLC (SCF) seeks to recover compensatory damages, the disgorgement of over $600,000 in fees and expenses paid to GP for its legal representation, pre-judgment interest, and the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Additionally, SCF requests any further relief deemed appropriate by the court, signaling its demand for a jury trial to address all claims stated in the complaint (Compl. ¶78, ¶85).

The procedural history preceding the present litigation reflects SCF's extensive attempts to challenge adverse court rulings arising from GP's alleged misconduct during the trial. Following the trial court’s sanction that struck SCF’s pleadings and limited the jury's deliberation to damages alone, SCF pursued a series of appeals. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s rulings, affirming the sanctions and the $3,310,000 jury verdict against SCF. Further, SCF’s petition for rehearing was denied (Compl. ¶43, ¶44, ¶46). SCF then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was ultimately rejected. After exhausting all appellate avenues, SCF complied with the court's judgment and post-judgment interest, leading to the filing of this malpractice suit (Compl. ¶28, ¶30).

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven (Compl. ¶49).

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.