McGuire, E. v. Russo, D.
2603 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- McGuire, a former hospital CT technologist, sued her employers for wrongful termination and age discrimination; she retained counsel at different times (Todd/Fitzpatrick, later Russo).
- Litigation was removed to federal court, underwent multiple amended complaints, and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice; McGuire accepted a $7,000 settlement obtained by Attorney Russo.
- McGuire then filed a legal-malpractice suit against her former attorneys and their firms, alleging negligence (failure to plead age claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, poor complaint amendments) that produced a low settlement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss via preliminary objections (demurrer); the trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, applying Muhammad v. Strassburger to bar malpractice claims after a client-approved settlement unless fraud or specific defects are pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a malpractice claim survives after the client agreed to settle | McGuire argued malpractice (negligence/breach) led to a weaker settlement | Defendants argued Muhammad bars malpractice suits after settlement absent fraud or legally deficient settlement | Court held Muhammad bars the suit because no fraud or legal-defect allegations were pleaded |
| Whether McGuire pleaded fraudulent inducement to invalidate Muhammad bar | McGuire did not allege fraud; claimed poor negotiation and omissions | Defendants contended absence of fraud is fatal under Muhammad | Court held plaintiff failed to plead fraud with requisite specificity; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether McGuire’s claims fit exceptions (bad legal advice re controlling law) like McMahon/Kilmer/White | McGuire argued counsel’s failures were substantive (omissions, failure to exhaust) leading to damage | Defendants argued alleged errors were ordinary negligence in litigation strategy, not misadvice about controlling law | Court held plaintiff did not allege the kind of incorrect legal-advice-on-law claims that McMahon/Kilmer permit; Muhammad controls |
| Recovery of attorneys’ fees | McGuire sought fees (argued entitlement) | Defendants noted no statutory or contractual basis for fee recovery | Court held claim for attorneys’ fees unnecessary to reach; plaintiff cited no basis so claim not permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346 (Pa. 1991) (settlement agreed to by a client bars subsequent negligence-based malpractice claims absent specific pleading of fraudulent inducement or legally deficient settlement)
- McMahon v. Shea, 688 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1997) (distinguishes Muhammad where attorney failed to advise client correctly on controlling law regarding contractual consequence)
- White v. Kreithen, 644 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 1994) (malpractice not barred where defendant’s conduct prevented client from obtaining counsel and settlement was effectively forced by court intervention)
- Banks v. Jerome Taylor & Assoc., 700 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Super. 1997) (Muhammad does not bar malpractice claims where settlement agreement is legally deficient or effects of legal document were not explained)