As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments challenging a 30-year-old precedent restricting dissatisfied plaintiffs from suing their lawyers over settlement outcomes, some justices asked why attorneys should be subject to different standards for malpractice than people in other professions.

During Wednesday’s arguments in the case captioned Khalil v. Williams, several of the justices suggested that the existing standards for determining a case’s merit could be adequate to vet legal malpractice claims during and that, contrary to the defense’s argument, striking the precedent would not bring about a flood of suits against lawyers.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]