Zarwin Attorney Patrick J. Wolfe, Jr. Secures Summary Judgment Dismissing Professional Liability Claim Against Client.

April 20, 2010

Patrick J. Wolfe, Jr., a member of the Firm’s commercial and professional liability practice groups secured dismissal of a legal malpractice claim brought against one of Zarwin Baum’s clients in New Jersey. 

The matter was pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County.  The law firm involved had filed a fee claim against one of its clients, which was met with a claim of legal malpractice.  The malpractice claim was based on an assertion by the claimant that the law firm had failed to properly protect the client’s interest in an underlying litigation, which concerned a dispute over the ownership of a business. 

In the middle of the litigation, one of the law firm’s partners left and took the underlying case with him to his new employer.  Subsequent to that lawyer’s departure, the underlying litigation was settled.  The claimant in this matter was later dissatisfied with that settlement, including a claim that it did not protect his interests in a third-party contract and brought claims against the Firm’s law firm client and the second law firm for legal malpractice.
 
The claimant asserted that the Firm’s law firm client had “started the ship sinking” and thus, had proximately caused the damages suffered by claimant when he settled the case, despite the fact that the Firm’s law firm client had nothing to do with his settlement of the underlying litigation.  The claimant asserted that the law firm had failed to protect his business and had further failed to secure a better third-party contract that claimant entered into during the underlying litigation.
 
Following extensive discovery, Mr. Wolfe filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the claimant could not establish that the law firm’s work proximately caused any damage to the claimant as all of his legal claims in the underlying litigation remained in tact at the conclusion of the law firm’s representation and a third-party contract claimant entered into during the law firm’s representation was being fully performed.   Mr. Wolfe also asserted that claimant’s malpractice expert’s opinion was net opinion in total and alternatively was net opinion as to the Firm’s law firm client’s conduct.
 
The Essex County Court initially denied the motion for summary judgment, concluding that certain facts related to the settlement of the underlying matter precluded summary judgment.  Following the Court’s denial, Mr. Wolfe asserted to the Court that it had overlooked the issues respecting claimant’s malpractice expert.
 
The Court agreed and granted reconsideration.  Following additional briefing on the net opinion issues, the Court reversed its previous denial of summary judgment, entered summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s law firm client on the malpractice claim and further granted summary judgment on the law firm’s claim for fees.