Content provided in partnership with

Suit against law firm revived

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Oct 30, 2003 by Alisa Bralove

A Rockdale couple's legal malpractice claim against a Baltimore County law firm did not arise until they actually signed a settlement agreement, the Court of Special Appeals said yesterday as it revived the clients' claim.

It would be detrimental to the traditional attorney-client relationship to suggest that a client, each time a disagreement arose, should expect to be damaged and be required to consult yet another counsel to review the actions of the attorney earlier retained, Judge J. Frederick Sharer wrote for the court.

Alan J. Belsky, the attorney who represented Jeffrey and Shirley Supik on the appeal, said he is glad to see them get another chance at trial.

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

They pursued the claim on their own without an attorney and articulated very good arguments at the summary judgment hearing, Belsky said. They had taken their own depositions, handled their own discovery, and gotten their case all the way to the day before trial. Obviously they're pleased that the case might be back in a posture for trial.

Janet A. MacDonald, who represented the law firm of Bodie, Nagle, Dolina, Smith & Hobbs, remained certain yesterday that the firm would come out ahead at trial.

No fact-finder has yet to consider any evidence in this case, MacDonald said. We remain confident that our clients will prevail.

The Supiks first consulted Bodie, Nagle in 1993 for assistance with a toxic tort claim against their exterminator and insurance company. The Supiks retained the firm and maintained the relationship until settling the case on April 1, 1997.

According to both parties, throughout the representation the Supiks often questioned the advice of their lawyers, particularly with regard to whether there should be a jury or bench trial and how much the case should be settled for.

Ultimately the Supiks settled their case for $175,000.

A month later, after speaking with one of the experts who planned to testify on their behalf, the Supiks began to believe they settled for less that the case was worth. The couple sent a letter to the firm seeking to repudiate the agreement, but the lawyers told them it was not possible.

In July 1997, the firm moved to strike its appearance as counsel and the Supiks filed a pro se motion with the court to repudiate the agreement. The court rejected that motion, a ruling later upheld on appeal.

On March 31, 2000, the Supiks, again acting pro se, filed a 16- count legal malpractice claim against the firm and three of its lawyers.

Bodie, Nagle responded that the statue of limitations had run. The trial court judge agreed, granting the firm's motion for summary judgment.

The Supiks retained Belsky and appealed, arguing they had suffered no injury until the day they signed the settlement agreement.

Bodie, Nagle, however, said the cause of action would have arisen prior to that point, considering how often the Supiks challenged the firm's advice.

The appeals court sided with the Supiks, saying the date of settlement was the first chance that the Supiks could have known they had suffered a legal harm.

Before that time their claim remained viable, their entitlement was not fixed, and damages remained unliquidated. Further negotiation was possible, Sharer wrote. With the execution of the settlement agreement, their potential dissolved into a certainty - there could be no greater recovery than that agreed to.

Earlier this year, in Vogel v. Touhey, the court held that a litigant who had settled was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from recovering in a subsequent legal malpractice suit. In a footnote, Sharer acknowledged Vogel but wrote that such an issue had not been raised below or on appeal in this case.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case:

Jeffrey Supik, et ux v. Bodie, Nagle, Dolina, Smith & Hobbs, P.A., et al. CSA No. 1697, Sept. Term 2002. Reported. Opinion by Sharer, J. Filed Oct. 29, 2003.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in granting a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice case when it determined that the limitations period begins to run when the client first questions an attorney's advice?

Holding:

Yes. The statute of limitations begins to run when the clients signed the settlement agreement because that is when they suffered actual harm.

Counsel:

Alan J. Belsky for appellants; Janet A. MacDonald for appellees.

Suit against law firm revived

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Oct 30, 2003 by Alisa Bralove

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Technology

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business