Previously, this column discussed the 1991 state Supreme Court case Muhammad v. Strassburger and its preclusion of legal malpractice actions arising from the negligent diminution in settlement value. Muhammad holds, with few exceptions, that an attorney is immune from claims that he or she gave negligent advice that persuaded a client to settle.
Subsequently, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Saffer v. Willoughby was discussed with relation to the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court case First Judicial District of Pennsylvania v. Rotwitt , which involves a request for Pennsylvania to recognize legal malpractice fee shifting, as New Jersey has.
This content has been archived.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
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]
