In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Daniel Dougherty, a judge proved that adjudicating while being Southern was not a good enough excuse for violating the rules of the court. At a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing in 2008, a Judge called the defendant "vile". That alone would not have been too bad and said statement likely could have been ignored, had the judge not gone much further.
"An attorney can not be held liable for gross negligence under the Dragonetti Act unless the jury also finds that the attorney initiated or continued the underlying action for an improper purpose." - Judge Mark I. Bernstein.
"The lawyer can thus properly be classified with members of various other professions who are considered to possess knowledge, skill or even intelligence superior to that of an ordinary man and are, as a consequence, held to a higher minimum standard of conduct."Gorski v. Smith, 812 A. 2d 683, 701 (Pa.Super 2002). Though this statement is sure to make any attorney proud, it is also comes laden with a hidden message: that with that great intelligence comes great responsibility. When an attorney gives a client assurance that everything is going fine, especially if the attorney says it multiple times but then turns out to be dead wrong, that attorney is likely looking at a malpractice case.