Aggressive Advocates For Your Rights

Posts tagged "PA Legal Malpractice"

Rules of Law versus Rules of Conduct.

Smith v. Morrison, 2012Pa. Super. 105 (Pa. Super. 2012) is a case from Perry County, Pennsylvania that analyzes the jury instructions to be given during legal malpractice cases. During trials, courts will often take suggestions for instructions from each party. ... 

Custody and Legal-Malpractice; Unfamiliar Foes.

Abeln v. Eidelman, 2012 WL 1379516 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2012) is a legal malpractice case out of Lehigh county,Pennsylvania. The case is different than those normally spoken about because it primarily involved representation related to a custody dispute. The child's ... 

The Den of Damages.

At times, Plaintiffs may not be happy with the counsel they have hired. However, unless there is actual loss, there is nothing actionable in court. Power Gourmet Concepts Inc. v. Irwin & McKnight, Cv-09-1199, Oct. 1, 2010 (M.D. Pa. 2010) is case which shows this concept in action. In the case, the plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of contract against I & M, the defendant attorneys. On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiffs were issued a certificate of judgment against a defendant in Ohio. The plaintiffs then sought to make the judgment effective in Pennsylvania, where the other people held property. To accomplish this domestication of judgment, the Plaintiffs hired I & M. The professional negligence allegation was based on delay by their attorneys in domesticating the judgment. They claimed that the Ohio defendant had assets in Pennsylvania which dissipated during the time they waited for I & M to domesticate judgment. The Plaintiffs also alleged there was a contract breach because of the delay, and that I & M was responsible for the additional legal fees incurred to remedy the malpractice. I & M made a motion for summary judgment, because they believed that even if the facts were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, there was still no case.

No Harm...No Help.

As this blog has mentioned before, one of the key requirements of any legal malpractice action is harm. What this means to a client who has received deficient legal services is there may be nothing but a broken promise after these services. Legal malpractice actions are finely tuned which is very nicely demonstrated in LVI Environmental Services (LVI) v. Duane Morris LLP(DM), 004498 AprilTerm 2008, 2010 WL 3398702, 12 Pa. D & C 5th457 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2010).

More than Malpractice.

In Tower Investments Inc. v. Rawle & Henderson LLP, 3291 MAYTERM 2007, 2008 WL 1923170 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2008), a Philadelphia court heard a complaint of legal malpractice alleged against attorneys hired by the insurance company to defend the policy holder. The trial court was considering whether or not the claims could move on to trial. Tower Investments alleged that as part of the settlement in the lawsuit, the attorneys for Rawle and Henderson executed a release contrary to the wishes of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought 4 counts; professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages.

request free consultation

Get Your Questions Answered within 24 hours

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Review Us

Morton Office
7 South Morton Avenue
Morton, PA 19070

Toll Free: 866-570-6945
Phone: 484-842-4030
Fax: 610-690-0880
Morton Law Office Map

Philadelphia Office
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Toll Free: 866-570-6945
Phone: 484-842-4030
Philadelphia Law Office Map

map image
map image