September 2025

Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense jury verdict in a legal malpractice matter in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff had retained an attorney to represent her in a personal injury matter. At the plaintiff’s instruction, the attorney settled the personal injury matter pre-suit, after which the plaintiff complained that the attorney should have waited for additional medical records and/or filed suit before advising her to settle her claims. After a one-week trial, the jury returned with a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the attorney defendant had not committed legal malpractice in the form of negligence or breached the attorney’s contract for legal services with the plaintiff. 

John ‘Jack’ Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Thomas Specht (Scranton, PA) successfully defended an appeal in the Third Circuit Court. This appeal arose out of an order for summary judgment we obtained in the District Court which dismissed a teacher’s complaint against the school district and the school district’s counsel arising out of tenure charges, which had been affirmed by the New Jersey Superior Court. Jack was also successful on behalf of a well-known estate practitioner before the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board. The Board found no clear and convincing evidence of unethical conduct and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. 

Kimberly House and Oswald Clark (both of Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended the plaintiffs’ appeal from a verdict obtained by Aaron Moore and Alesia Sulock (both of Philadelphia) for our client in a legal malpractice claim. During the case, the trial court partially granted our motion for judgment on the pleadings, which dismissed several tort claims and a claim for unfair trade practices. The matter then proceeded to trial on the remaining breach of contract claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the rulings on the motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion in limine that purportedly precluded the plaintiffs from introducing certain evidence. The Superior Court affirmed in a unanimous decision, holding that the plaintiffs’ tort claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs’ argument regarding the trial court’s decision on the motion in limine was waived because they failed to properly develop the argument in their appellate brief. 

Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY) succeeded in obtaining a pre-answer dismissal of malpractice claims against a Brooklyn attorney who allegedly failed to advise his former client of the exposure he faced in a fraud lawsuit. The former client claimed that he understood the risk of losing at trial, but his attorney failed to advise him that he would be liable for pre-verdict interest, which amounted to over $389,000. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged the attorney failed to seek a set off based on a co-defendant’s settlement. We argued that documentary evidence, including emails the plaintiff denied receiving, established his awareness of the potential exposure. We also argued that the plaintiff would need to pay the amount of the judgment, less the set off which he would have received, before he claimed to have been damaged by the failure to seek the set off. The court agreed with both arguments and dismissed the complaint against our client. 

Michael Jacobson (New York, NY) successfully secured the dismissal of fraud, RICO, and civil conspiracy claims against a New Jersey attorney and law firm sued in New York. In a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Michael effectively argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over our clients because they lacked sufficient contacts with New York under New York’s general jurisdiction and long arm jurisdiction statutes. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against our clients. 

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) secured dismissal of a surcharge complaint filed in Orphans’ Court against an attorney for the administrator of the estate. The surcharge complaint was filed by a beneficiary of the estate under a third-party beneficiary theory. The beneficiary alleged the attorney for the administrator was negligent in his representation of the administrator in his capacity as fiduciary to the estate. The Orphans’ Court granted our preliminary objections and dismissed the surcharge complaint against the attorney on the basis that the Orphans Court did not have statutory authority over the attorney for the fiduciary in order to impose a surcharge for alleged loss to an estate. The court also found that the beneficiary could not plead facts to establish a third-party beneficiary claim under Guy v. Liederbach.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) tried an arbitration before a three-member panel of the Fee Arbitration Committee. The allegations in response to the failure to pay the legal fees owed involved allegations of ethical violations in the handling of a highly-contested matrimonial matter. A large portion of the representation involved responding to the allegations of RPC violations and failure to communicate with the client regarding the litigation status and marital support. This matter was originally tried, and the Disciplinary Review Board remanded and referred this matter to the Office of Attorney Ethics to investigate the allegations of RPC violations. The hearing on remand addressed the proprietary of the fee and ruled in favor of our client for 100% of the fee.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

By Gregory P. Graham, Esq.

Every new matter provides an opportunity for an attorney to refine their skills. With that, each new engagement offers an opportunity to revise and strengthen provisions that could provide better preventive protection against possible malpractice claims.

Adjustments to standard provisions in client engagement letters could offer greater clarity as to the scope of the relationship between lawyer and client, the particular services being offered, and the limits to both. This is particularly true for letters being sent to new clients or that focus on a new area of business development.

A thorough client engagement letter includes provisions that:

1. define the attorney-client relationship;
2. set forth the specific scope of services;
3. identify the applicable fees and payment terms;
4. address potential conflicts of interest; and
5. establish a framework for communication between client and attorney (or client and the attorney’s staff or firm).

These letters are tailored to a practice area and molded by attorneys’ preferences. Despite the variety in their presentation, due to practice types and purpose, all engagement letters should share one common goal, to set forth clear expectations and boundaries for both the attorney and client as to the engagement.

But lawyers seeking an opportunity to “level up” their engagement letters should consider the following specific tips to transform their engagement letters from a simple agreement memorializing representation to a defense tool providing a level of protection against potential malpractice claims.

Key tips to “level up” the engagement letter:

1. consider the benefit of both expressly identifying the client and expressly identifying who is not the client;
2. provide distinct services—such as the administration of an estate or representation in a particular legal dispute;
3. consider the benefits of including the final payment framework in the engagement correspondence; and
4. always note the importance of a disengagement term as a mechanism to wrap up an attorney-client relationship before a malpractice claim arises.

We are proud that the following members of our Disciplinary Board Representation Practice Group and Lawyers’ Professional Liability Practice Group have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in the area of Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants. 

• Josh J. T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA)
• Michael J. Connolly (Scranton, PA)
• Howard Mankoff (Roseland, NJ) 
• John L. Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) 
• William F. Waldron Jr. (Roseland, NJ) 

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/.

August 21, 2025 — Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Ethics Hotline and Special Ethical Considerations for Prosecutors” at Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office: August CLE Program hosted by the Philadelphia Bar Association.

August 19, 2025 — Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA), Co-Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility and Guidance Committee, was a panelist at the webinar “Ethics and Legal Malpractice Avoidance.” Panelists addressed essential topics, such as strategies, ethical considerations, client communication best practices, and how to avoid common pitfalls that can lead to malpractice claims. These experienced defense counsel and carrier representatives explored the most common allegations against lawyers, including area of practice frequency and severity.

July 21, 2025 — The Legal Intelligencer published Alesia S. Sulock's and Josh Byrne’s (both of Philadelphia, PA) article “Socially Responsible Lawyers: Why You Need to Understand Social Media to Competently Represent Your Clients, Part 2.” You can read this article HERE.

July 10, 2025 — Gregory P. Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “AI Litigation: The Current Landscape” at the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s annual CLE and Conference. The program discussed the current landscape of liability claims stemming from the use of Generative and Agentic AI. 

June 2025 – James D. Greco (Scranton, PA) authored “Getting the Gist: The Evolution and Application of Pennsylvania’s Gist of the Action Doctrine in Legal Malpractice Actions,” which was published in our newsletter Defense Digest. Read his article HERE.