Lawyers in Media, PALawyers in Media, PA
Lawyers in Media, PA
Gibson & Perkins, PC | Attorneys at Law
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Linkedin
Call (610) 565-1708
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Legal Malpractice
    • Employment Law
    • Employee Rights
    • Trusts and Estates
    • Landlord Tenant
    • Tax Controversy
    • Civil Appellate
    • Tax Problem Resolution
    • Bankruptcy
    • Divorce
  • Attorneys
    • Edward L. Perkins
    • Walter J. Timby
    • Stephen Loester
    • Paul Fellman
    • Martin J. Pezzner
    • Michael Siddons
  • Legal Resources
    • Educational Videos
    • Legal Blog
    • Mobile Apps
    • Publications
  • Reviews
  • Locations
  • Contact Us
    • Pennsylvania Office
    • New Jersey Office
Menu back  
 
May 12, 2016Gibson & Perkins, PC Blog, Legal Malpractice

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AVOIDANCE TIP

 

The Uncertain Nature of Contract Damages in PA Legal Malpractice Cases

 

Gibson & Perkins, P.C. is a full-service litigation firm located at Suite 204, 100 W. Sixth Street, Media, Pennsylvania, 19063 with a team of experienced litigators licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. Call 610-565-1708 or visit www.gibperk.com for more information.

On July 17, 2012, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held in Coleman v. Duane Morris, LLP that a plaintiff’s damages for a legal malpractice claim, based upon breach of contract, are not necessarily limited to the attorneys’ fees paid to the defendant during the underlying representation.  In doing so, the Court held that the attorneys’ fees limitation previously announced by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Bailey v. Tucker is inapplicable when the underlying case is a civil action, rather than a criminal action as in Bailey.

The Supreme Court granted allocator, but the parties settled before the Court heard arguments.  Accordingly, the certainty of an award of consequential damages is contingent upon the defendant’s willingness to spend the time and resources to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court.

====================================

The Uncertain Nature of Contract Damages

in PA Legal Malpractice Cases

            On July 17, 2012, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held in Coleman v. Duane Morris, LLP that a plaintiff’s damages for a legal malpractice claim, based upon breach of contract, are not necessarily limited to the attorneys’ fees paid to the defendant during the underlying representation.  In doing so, the Court held that the attorneys’ fees limitation previously announced by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Bailey v. Tucker is inapplicable when the underlying case is a civil action. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ attorneys and aggrieved clients should proceed with caution, as the state of the law with respect to this issue remains unsettled.

The Legal Landscape

            In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice stemming from negligence is a relatively short two years, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524.  Under § 5525, a malpractice action based on a breach of contract must be commenced within four years.  However, in Pennsylvania “when an attorney enters into a contract to provide legal services, there automatically arises a contractual duty on the part of the attorney to render those legal services in a manner that comports with the profession at large.”  Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683, 694 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).  Accordingly, a plaintiff can always pursue their case under a contract theory and enjoy the longer four year statute of limitations, at first glance effectively rendering the two year negligence statute obsolete.

            However, in Bailey the Supreme Court ruled that a legal malpractice plaintiff suing under a contract theory can only recover the amount of legal fees, actually paid, in the underlying matter.  Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa. 1993).  Until Bailey, a legal malpractice plaintiff could be made “whole” only by succeeding on a claim sounding in negligence—thus negating the benefit of the longer contractual period of limitations. Coleman, however, adds important qualifications to Bailey.

The Facts

            The plaintiffs in Coleman were the owners of BCA Management, Inc. and BCA Professional Services, Inc. (together “BCA”).  The Plaintiffs decided to sell BCA after it was determined that the companies owed approximately $2.16 million in unpaid taxes, for which the Plaintiffs were personally liable.  The Plaintiffs engaged the services of Duane Morris, LLP (“Defendants”), via oral agreement, to assist in the sale to purchaser Mirabilis Ventures, Inc. (“Mirabilis”).  Pursuant to BCA’s agreement with Mirabilis, Duane Morris would bill BCA for its services, but Mirabilis would ultimately pay the fees after the sale was completed.  Despite Plaintiffs’ expressed expectation that the sale would eliminate their liability for the back-taxes, an error on the part of a Duane Morris attorney left them personally liable.

            Subsequently, the Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendants for legal malpractice based upon breach of contract, as they were outside the two-year window for a negligence claim.  Defendants filed a new matter asserting, inter alia, that their invoices for legal services remained unpaid.  Thereafter, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that because Plaintiffs had not in fact paid their legal fees, they had incurred no recoverable damages. Based upon the holding of Bailey, the trial court agreed with Defendants and dismissed the suit.  The Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court.

The Decision

             The Superior Court found the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bailey unpersuasive when applied to the facts of Coleman and reversed and remanded the trial court’s dismissal of the case.  The Superior Court reviewed the Bailey decision and noted that the Supreme Court had specifically addressed the issues within the context of policy considerations unique to cases where the underlying subject matter is criminal. The Superior Court concluded that the Supreme Court intended its holding in Bailey, regarding recoverable damages in a legal malpractice contract claim, to be limited to cases where the underlying action was criminal.  The Superior Court in Coleman stated:

[W]e conclude that that limitation on damages imposed by the Bailey Court applies to an action in assumpsit based on a claim of attorney malpractice in a criminal case, but that limitation does not extend to an action for legal malpractice in assumpsit where the underlying action was, as here, a civil action.

            Coleman v. Duane Morris, LLP, 58 A.3d 833, 838 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).

Practical Application

            The decision in Coleman certainly appears to have positive implications for aggrieved clients and their counsel.  After all, the law in the Commonwealth at the moment indicates that a plaintiff can recover more than attorneys’ fees in a legal malpractice action based on breach of contract, provided of course the underlying matter was a civil action.  However, there is reason for pause.

            The Coleman Defendants appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.  On June 13, 2013 the Supreme Court certified the following question for appeal:

Does the limitation on damages in a legal malpractice action sounding only in contract set forth in Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 252, 621 A.2d 108, 115 (1993) — which limited such damages to “the amount actually paid for the services plus statutory interest” in a case involving an underlying criminal representation—apply where the underlying representation is a civil one?

            Coleman v. Duane Morris, LLP, 68 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2013).

Clearly, the highest court in the Commonwealth was intent on settling this question.  However, the Supreme Court did not get the chance to do so, as the parties in Coleman settled before Court could render its decision and the appeal was withdrawn on September 17, 2013.

            Following Coleman, a plaintiff can file a legal malpractice action based on breach of contract and claim damages in excess of their underlying attorneys’ fees.  The Superior Court will likely uphold the trial court’s award of consequential damages.  However, that hypothetical decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which appears poised to decide the question.  Until such time as the Supreme Court conclusively determines this issue, attorneys should counsel potential plaintiffs that if they wish to pursue a legal malpractice claim based upon breach of contract, they should be prepared to see the case through multiple levels of appeal.  Moreover, the risk remains that the Supreme Court could overturn the Coleman decision and reestablish the preeminence of Bailey.

Tweet
Share1
Pin
1 Shares
Share this post
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInPinterest
About the author

Gibson & Perkins, PC

At the law firm of Gibson & Perkins, PC our experienced Delaware County Lawyers, practicing throughout Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey provide corporate, business transaction, tax, estate and litigation legal services to business organizations and individuals. Our firm has expanded from its founding in 2001, into a vibrant and growing law firm with experienced Lawyers that are dedicated to serving an ever expanding and sophisticated client base. Contact our dedicated Delaware County Lawyers today for skilled representation.

Related posts
Estate Planning for the Practicing Accountant Webinar
Estate Planning for the Practicing Accountant Webinar – September 12
August 29, 2019
Selling Your Small Business
Selling Your Small Business – Maximizing Value and Efficiency Webinar – September 26
August 29, 2019
Ethics Quizzo Webinar – August 15
Ethics Quizzo Webinar – August 15
July 30, 2019
Understanding Section 199A Self Study CPE Course
Understanding Section 199A Self Study CPE Course
July 18, 2019
Special Needs Trusts Webinar
Special Needs Trusts Webinar – July 25
July 11, 2019
Will Contests Webinar on June 11
Will Contests Webinar on June 11
May 24, 2019
video vault gp

Contact Our Attorneys

Download Our Free Legal Apps

Mobile Apps

Client Reviews

stars
“I highly Recommend Gibson & Perkins. I have used their services for approximately 6 years now and been through a few cases together with very positive outcomes. Personally, I have used Paul Fellman and Walter Timby on those occasions. Both, as a team & separately these Attorneys were wonderful to work with and easily accessible to reach if I had any questions. Professionalism is the word that comes to mind to describe the firm, as a whole. Always completely prepared for any surprises that may pop up during a trial. They were well versed on all pertinent info pertaining to each case. As I client, I always felt I was an integral part of the team, not an after-thought, that had to be brought up to speed a half hour before the trial started. I could not recommend this firm and Mr. Fellman and Mr. Timby any higher.”
– Maria Twining

Read More Reviews

THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT. These materials have been prepared by Gibson & Perkins, PC for general informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Every case is unique. The information contained in this website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney. Website Users should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. This website constitutes Attorney Advertising. | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | © 2019 Gibson & Perkins, PC.