Lawyers' Professional Liability

LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RESULTS*

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) received dismissal of a disciplinary complaint in a matter involving allegations that the attorney improperly terminated a non-refundable, flat-fee representation and collected an excessive fee. Scott successfully argued that the attorney, our client, complied with Rule 1.16 when he terminated the representation after his client failed to pay the entire amount of the agreed upon flat fee. Scott also argued that the fee our client did collect was clearly not excessive under Rule 1.5 due to the amount of work our client performed on the matter prior to termination. 

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an order on the eve of trial in a complex legal malpractice action that rose out of a serious multiparty, multimillion-dollar medical malpractice action which was handled by our clients. Our clients are an extremely well-respected plaintiff’s medical malpractice firm in Philadelphia. The court entered an order on our motion to strike the plaintiff’s expert’s report and opinions as net. The court also entered an order precluding the plaintiff’s expert from testifying at trial in the legal malpractice action. 

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an order on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a complex legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying ongoing probate action in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Camden County. Jack’s client is a well-known probate expert who represented the co-executor in contentious probate litigation over several properties and funds which the co-executor plaintiff claimed he did not receive as a result of the conduct of Jack’s client. The court rejected the claim and granted the motion specifically with prejudice.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
 

LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Alesia Sulock and Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) published in The Legal Intelligencer the second part of a series of articles of risk management tips of attorneys titled “You Diligently Protect Your Clients; What About You? Part 2 (The Middle and the End).” The article discusses the importance of client communication, file management, and good disengagement practices. You can read their article here.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented on the current New Jersey law on the New Business Rule after the Supreme Court’s decision in Schwartz v. Menas, a case Jack and Jeremy have been handling on behalf of their clients, a well-known law firm in New Jersey handling real estate and land use matters. Jack and Jeremy went through certain jurisdictional approaches to the New Business Rule, as well as New Jersey’s current rule after the Supreme Court decision in Schwartz v. Menas, 246 N.J. 145 (2021). This presentation was attended by various claims professionals and underwriters, and crosses multi-dimensional practices between professional liability and casualty.

 

^{Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 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.}