Game Over: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Allocatur to Review “Monday Morning Quarterbacking” of Personal Injury Lawsuit
On March 1, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied plaintiff Jibreel Townsend’s petition for allowance of appeal, which sought reconsideration of the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Townsend v. Spear Greenfield and Richman, P.C., et al., 240 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. Aug. 13. 2020). This successful result, obtained by appellate attorney Carol Vanderwoude and professional liability attorneys Tim Ventura and Dana Gittleman, signaled the end of 3+ years of litigation arising from our client’s representation of Mr. Townsend for injuries sustained in an October 2011 motor vehicle accident.
In August 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of the plaintiff’s legal malpractice/negligence and fraud claims asserted against his counsel in the underlying personal injury action, purportedly due to the failure to sue a potential party that limited the applicable insurance coverage available to him. The plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly participated in the settlement of the underlying personal injury lawsuit, thus barring his subsequent legal malpractice action arising out of “frustration and dissatisfaction,” pursuant to Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346 (Pa. 1991) (holding that a dissatisfied plaintiff may not sue his attorney following a settlement to which he agreed unless the plaintiff can show he was fraudulently induced to settle).
To be sure, the court concluded that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into the underlying settlement—with no indication that his attorneys failed to inform him of salient legal issues or the effects of settlement—and he was not fraudulently induced to do so in the absence of sound evidence and testimony to support this claim.
The Townsend decision reiterates the importance of being candid with clients when entering into settlement negotiations, including the consequences and effects of the decision to voluntarily settle as opposed to proceeding to trial. Further, the decision comports with existing Pennsylvania precedent, which supports insulating attorneys from legal malpractice claims arising out of “post-mortem” settlement value dissatisfaction, rather than provable negligence.
The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.