.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - RESULTS & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – August 2023

August 1, 2023

RESULTS*

Aaron Moore (Philadelphia, PA & Wilmington, DE) obtained a unanimous jury verdict in favor of our clients, a lawyer and his law firm in a legal malpractice case arising out of the lawyer’s drafting of a postnuptial agreement. The postnuptial agreement was invalidated by a family court judge, causing the husband to lose approximately $1.2 million as part of a subsequent property separation agreement. The jury considered testimony from the plaintiff’s ex-wife which reflected that she had signed the agreement under duress, and concluded that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the postnuptial agreement was invalidated as a result of anything the lawyer did.

Aaron Moore (Philadelphia, PA & Wilmington, DE) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a unanimous defense jury verdict in Philadelphia on a legal malpractice claim. The plaintiffs had hired our attorney client to represent them in a property damage case against contractors and an insurance company after, as they claimed, the roof of their property was left open and water damage was sustained. The plaintiffs argued that their attorney failed to faithfully represent them and caused them to lose their claims against the contractors. After a week-long trial, we successfully proved that our attorney client did not cause the plaintiffs to lose the underlying claims, and we obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the attorney defendant and his law firm.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) obtained summary judgment on an alleged fraud case arising out of the sale of an oil and gas lease. The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations. 

Michele Frisbie (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a transfer and dismissal, with prejudice, on a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice action. Michele argued that the plaintiff’s claim that her daughter’s court-appointed guardian ad litem’s negligence led to the award of custody to the father following a dependency hearing. The custody award, the plaintiff alleged, put her at a disadvantage in the divorce and damaged her and the child. First, Michele successfully argued for the transfer of the matter from the county of the mother’s residence to the county of the dependency hearing. She then successfully argued that the plaintiff had no right to bring a cause of action for herself or the child.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) successfully handled the following matters:

  • Finding for defendants in an arbitration involving a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim arising out of an underlying wrongful use of civil proceedings claim, which, in turn, arose out of an alleged copyright violation.
  • Received dismissal of a disciplinary complaint in a matter involving alleged conflicts of interest and an alleged failure by an attorney to explain the relationship between two attorneys in the matter.
  • Representing a prominent Philadelphia criminal defense firm in a legal malpractice action, Josh had preliminary objections sustained and the legal malpractice complaint dismissed with prejudice in Lehigh County. The court sustained Josh’s preliminary objections on the basis that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the gist of the action doctrine and the statute of limitations had expired on any potential negligence claim.
  • The Superior Court affirmed an order of the trial court sustaining preliminary objections. Josh successfully argued that the wrongful use of civil proceedings claim (Dragonetti), which arose out of an underlying wrongful use of civil proceedings claim, was barred as a matter of law by the applicable statute of limitations.
  • Josh was part of a multi-state team of lawyers who participated in a three-day bench trial in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and successfully argued that an underlying client had the capacity to execute a retention agreement with a forum selection clause requiring any legal malpractice action be brought in Pennsylvania. The legal malpractice claims alleged multimillions of dollars of damages and involved representation of a billionaire oil investor who had been involved in a multiyear battle with his family over control of his businesses. An order and opinion enforcing the forum selection clause was entered on March 17, 2023. Enforcement of the forum selection clause effectively bars the legal malpractice claims due to the operation of the statute of limitations.
  • Achieved an informal admonition, the lowest form of discipline which is non-public, for his client in a matter that involved alleged failures to appropriately represent clients and timely file appeals in six different criminal matters.
  • Received a dismissal of a disciplinary complaint for his client in a matter involving allegations of failures to communicate with clients and prosecute a case over a six-year period. The letter requesting information from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was 99 paragraphs long, the response took 106 single-spaced pages with 176 exhibits.
  • Achieved dismissal of a 99-paragraph disciplinary complaint that alleged lack of communications with clients over the course of a 12-year-long underlying matter. The response to the disciplinary complaint was over 100 single-spaced pages setting forth the details of the underlying matter and included more than 150 exhibits.

Nicholas Chrysanthem (New York, NY) was successful on a pre-answer motion to dismiss with respect to four of five causes of action relating to fraud and intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and piercing the corporate veil.

Nicholas Chrysanthem (New York, NY) and Tim Raveica (Melville, NY) were successful in convincing the judge to dismiss the complaint against their client on a pre-answer motion based on the statute of limitations.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) were successful on pretrial motions in obtaining orders in the Superior Court Burlington County, striking the plaintiff’s expert reports and barring the plaintiff’s liability and damages experts from testifying at trial in a complex legal malpractice case. This matter, where the damages exceeded $1 million, arose out of the plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination by his employer. The case had resulted in two trials, an appeal and a remand. The plaintiff holds an MBA from Harvard and claimed that, as a result of the termination, he was unable to market and sell his intellectual property.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) won summary judgment on behalf of a law firm in an alleged fraud case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case arose out the firm’s representation of a party to the sale of an oil and gas lease in McKean County, Pennsylvania. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations based upon the plaintiff’s principal’s deposition testimony regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged harm. The court applied the “sham affidavit” doctrine to disregard the plaintiff’s subsequent contradictory affidavits.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
 

 

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

On June 6, 2023, Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) presented on a panel discussion, “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and in connection with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The presentation was a live broadcast to several hundred attorneys across Pennsylvania.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) spoke to the Monroe County Bar Association on June 15, 2023, on legal malpractice avoidance.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) spoke to the Westmoreland County Bar Association on June 16th on legal malpractice avoidance. 

Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) spoke to a law firm client on legal malpractice avoidance on June 20, 2023.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) spoke at the Camden County Bar Association webinar “Mediation Process & Techniques in Civil & Chancery Disputes: Producing the Best Results for Your Client.”
 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – August 2023 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 © 2023 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

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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.

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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. 

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney