Legal Malpractice

Nixon Peabody in Another Legal Malpractice Suit

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

New York Lawyer reports that a legal malpractice case in Philadelphia may continue as is a case in New Jersey.

"Just a few weeks after a malpractice claim against Nixon Peabody was allowed to go forward in New Jersey, a Philadelphia judge has allowed to continue a separate, but similar, malpractice action against the firm in Pennsylvania, denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In Jan Rubin Associates Inc. v. Nixon Peabody LLP, Nixon Peabody said the former client waived its right to file a malpractice claim under Pennsylvania law because they entered a settlement agreement in the underlying action.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Senior Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr. disagreed, ruling in a July 31 opinion the state's law allows exceptions to that rule if the settlement was legally deficient or if the ramifications of the settlement were not fully explained by the attorney.

Nixon Peabody was relying on a 1991 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Muhammad v. Strassburger, in which the plaintiffs decided after settling a case that the amount wasn't enough and sued their lawyer for malpractice. The court held that simple dissatisfaction with the terms of the settlement was not enough for a malpractice claim, according to Sheppard's five-page opinion. "

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on August 15, 2008 (boomark / email).