In Veneri v. Pappano, there were two take away points, one for attorneys who work for the government and the other for clients who feel they have been wronged by their attorneys. 622 A. 2d 977 (Pa. Superior 1993).
Instinctively, it has generally been wide-felt that settlement of an action cures all. Certainly, courts promote settlement (especially nowadays, towards the ever-declining percentage of cases tried). Likewise, case law generally renders settlements - even verbally agreed - as difficult to undo. In fact, one of the critiques of the American legal system is its insistence on and repercussions of finality (as evident when comparing our appellate process with that of Italy's, as seen in the Amanda Knox trial - e.g., Italy effectively allowing an appellate re-examination of contested evidence with apparently the opportunity to introduce new evidence).
In Pashak v. Barish, the husbad of the appellant, William Pashak, agreed to settle a negligence case for $100,000 in accordance with advice from his attorney, Marvin Barish, Esq. 450 a2d 67 (1982). The settlement stemmed from an employment action where Mr. Pashak was working on a ship and was injured. Mr. Pashak executed a release and subsequently received the settlement proceeds.
In Mariscotti v. Tinari, the court found that a finding of Summary judgment was appropriate when Joan K. Mariscotti, the wife in a divorce settlement, made a complaint of loss that was too speculative. 335 Pa. Super. 599, 485 A.2d 56 (1984).
"An attorney who commits malpractice is liable to his client for any reasonably foreseeable loss caused by his negligence including emotional distress resulting from the loss of liberty."