Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
51 results for '* topic:"Legal Malpractice"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-04-19
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Savage
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0437
Defendant attorney moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's legal malpractice action and court found plaintiff could not prove he would have prevailed in the underlying action over an investment or establish actual injury. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2021-04-12
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Construction | Legal Services
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Olson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0400
Parties cross-appealed verdict in favor of plaintiff in legal malpractice action arising from her action against construction company over home and court found plaintiff's former husband was not an indispensable party, there was sufficient evidence to allow jury to find defendant's legal negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's failure to prevail against construction company, one satisfaction rule prevented plaintiff from recovering more than once for claims centered on defective foundation construction and plaintiff was enti
Publication Date: 2021-02-15
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0169
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing his action against defendant attorneys, who filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against plaintiff, for insufficient service and noting venue was improper for the abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings claims and court found plaintiff's argument that venue was proper under §1391(b)(1) was being raised for the first time, he plainly misread the statutory text and failed to fulfill the high burden of showing manifest injustice. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2021-02-15
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Williamson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0082
Although plaintiff alleged a breach of contract claim against his former law firm, the action sounded in tort. The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint and required him to file a certificate of merit if he amended his complaint.
Publication Date: 2021-01-18
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Energy | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
Judge: Judge Tunnell
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1389
Plaintiff's dispute against defendant, an attorney, fell outside the scope of an arbitration clause in an escrow agreement where the suit did not seek relief against defendant for his role as escrow agent in a financial transaction, but for his legal services predicated upon an attorney-client relationship. The court recommend affirmance of its order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-01-18
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services | Real Estate
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Pellegrini
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0045
Trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's legal malpractice counts based on Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messe, Shilobod & Gutnik, 587 A. 2d 1346, but appellant's allegations of fraud against her former attorneys over the signing of a release had not been litigated and were not estopped. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Publication Date: 2021-01-04
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Saylor
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1436
In this professional liability action grounded on alleged attorney malpractice, the state's high court denied plaintiffs' request to adopt the continuous representation rule to toll pertinent statutes of limitations, reasoning that statutes of limitations are legislative in nature. The high court affirmed the decision below.
Publication Date: 2020-12-28
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Consulting | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1414
Defendant law firm moved to dismiss plaintiff's contract and intentional tort action based on defendant law firm's withdrawal from representation and the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition in Minnesota to collect fees allegedly owed by plaintiff and court found service was not properly effectuated and court only had personal jurisdiction over plaintiff's abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings claims but there was no venue as to those claims. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2020-11-09
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Bartle
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1221
Defendant moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in plaintiff's legal malpractice action and court found there were genuine issues of material fact as to when the statute began to run. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2020-10-19
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge McCaffery
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1141
Trial court correctly applied res judicata to dismiss appellant's legal malpractice complaint and properly sustained appellees' preliminary objections based on lis pendens, the shifting of names on an underlying legal doctrine was proper and the operative facts and issues raised by appellant in this case and the 2013 lawsuit were the same. Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read