.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – RESULTS* & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2024

September 1, 2024

Lawyers’ Professional Liability RESULTS*

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Josh’s client did not timely respond to the IOLTA Board’s inquiry about an accidental overdraw of the attorney’s IOLTA account because he was out of the office sick and did not receive the correspondence until after a response deadline had passed. Josh achieved a dismissal of a disciplinary complaint against his client.
  • Josh received dismissal of a disciplinary complaint made in a matter where the judge’s opinion asserted the client’s filings that sought to remove a guardian were frivolous. The response to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s 50-plus paragraph request for a statement of position was more than 23 single-spaced pages and included more than 30 exhibits. 
  • Josh received a complete finding for the defense in an arbitration of a Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings (Dragonetti) claim.

Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY and Long Island, NY) 

  • Matt successfully defended an attorney from malpractice claims stemming from a missed court appearance which resulted in a default. Matt filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to allege the outcome of the underlying proceeding would have been different but for the attorney’s alleged malpractice. He also argued that the damages which the plaintiff sought—including emotion distress and pain and suffering—are not recoverable under New York law in a legal malpractice action. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

 

Lawyers’ Professional Liability THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

  • September 10 – Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY and Long Island, NY) was one of the guest speakers at the New York State Bar Association’s statewide “Risk Management for Lawyers” webinar. The issues he addressed included the joint and several liability of attorneys for malpractice under New York law; intra-firm relationships of attorneys; the supervisory obligations of lawyers under the Rules of Professional Conduct; and file retention requirements for attorneys under New York law. 
  • August 21 – Yaël Dadoun (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Professional Liability Issues Attorneys, How to Avoid Malpractice and Disciplinary Board Issues,” to the Dauphin County Bar Association on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. 
  • August 20 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist on the presentation of a CLE sponsored by the Family Law Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association on legal malpractice and ethics issues facing family law practitioners.
  • August 5 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist for the Philadelphia Bar Association’s live webcast “Suicide Prevention and the 302 Process: Training for Family Law Practitioners.” Hosted by the Family Law Section, this program was designed to equip family law practitioners with essential knowledge and tools to navigate the delicate intersection of mental health crises and domestic relations legal proceedings. Panelists concentrated on Suicide Prevention and the 302 Process, addressing mental health intervention and legal considerations in the family law context. This program also examined how to handle ethical considerations, such as confidentiality, when a client may be at risk for self-harm. 
  • July 24 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Disciplinary and Reinstatement Cases You Should Know” at the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s training for new hearing committee members. The presentation focused on the disciplinary process from the perspective of respondent’s counsel. 
  • July 22 – As Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Amicus Curie Brief Committee, Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was the primary author of an amicus brief submitted in the matter of Commonwealth v. Stevenson, which urged the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reject the “Ohler doctrine.” The Ohler doctrine holds that a defendant who is unsuccessful in persuading a trial court to exclude evidence of a prior conviction in the context of a motion in limine and then preemptively introduces that evidence cannot claim on appeal that the trial court’s admissibility ruling was in error. The Pennsylvania Bar Association, along with several other amici, urged the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reject the Ohler doctrine. By unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed and reversed the Superior Court decision and remanded the matter with appropriate instructions. As the Bar Association’s brief noted, this ruling has significant implications for all litigators, including those in civil practice. 
  • July 18 – InsuranceLawGlobal.com published Alesia Sulock’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “The Assessment of Professional Liability Claims in the U.S.” You can read Alesia’s article here. 
  • July 15 – The Legal Intelligencer published “‘But I Could Have Gotten More!’—Damages Speculation in Legal Malpractice Cases” by Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne (both of Philadelphia, PA). You can read their article here. 
  • July 11 – Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) presented a CLE on the topic “AI’s Role in Changing the Defense Litigation Landscape of the Future” on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI). Greg serves as statewide Co-Chair of PDI’s Professional Liability Committee.

 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney