Previously, this column on attorney liabilities discussed the “Muhammad Doctrine.” In Muhammad v. Strassburger, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that there can be no legal malpractice cause of action arising from negligent settlement valuation. This limited holding was for a long time incorrectly overbroad, held by the courts of common pleas to preclude all post-settlement legal malpractice causes (i.e., “settle and sue” prohibition), with few exceptions (i.e., fraudulent settlement inducement, etc.).
However, as will be historically discussed below, the Superior Court in Kilmer v. Sposito, No. 1776 MDA 2015, (Pa.Super. July 1), has recently re-grounded back to Muhammad’s otherwise limited holding.
This content has been archived.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]
