Doebler v. Arensberg, 2010 WL 3940305, (Pa. Com. Pl. 2010) is a Lycoming,Pennsylvania case which analyzes several familiar aspects of legal malpractice. There are several conclusions to be taken away from the case. Primarily, the case concludes that even when an individual is a substantial shareholder of a corporation, they corporate entity should be the party instituting the cause of action. The second point is that the statute of limitations inPennsylvania is a strictly enforced doctrine, with a limited exception. Finally, the case stands for the proposition that allegations of damages should be pled with as much particularity as possible to avoid the label of speculative.
Millar v. Del Sardo, A-4388-10T1, 2012 WL 1448034 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 27, 2012) is an appeal case, concerning a grant of summary judgment to a defendant. The case touches on 2 areas of law which are commonly litigated today; worker's compensation and employment discrimination. Millar, the plaintiff hired the defendant attorney Del Sardo to file an action against her former employer after she was terminated. The attorney was retained about 2 years after the firing. In the original employment case, the Plaintiff believed Del Sardo did not include wrongful termination, and failure to accommodate her disability. Eventually all of the claims were dismissed before trial.
Buntz v. Peperno, 2008 WL 693590, (Pa. Com. Pl. 2008) is a Lackawanna County case which examines the interaction of referrals and attorney-client fee arrangements. It is notable if only for its ordinary nature, in that it is no different than the practice undertaken by many attorneys. The underlying case giving rise to the legal malpractice was a car accident suit. The full extent of Brenda Buntz's suit was based on breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, legal malpractice, and fraud mainly.