Has the Pennsylvania Superior Court limited application of the Muhammad Doctrine in attorney malpractice cases?

On January 5, 2021, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion that purported to limit the application of the Muhammad Doctrine, under which an attorney’s dissatisfied client was generally barred from bringing non-fraud claims against her attorney following a settlement to which she agreed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has opined that a client can maintain a legal malpractice action against her attorney following a settlement to which she agreed in the absence of fraud, if she can demonstrate that the attorney failed to correctly advise her of well-established principles of law in settling the case, and that it was these misstatements about the effect of the settlement that influenced her decision to settle the case.

In narrowing the scope of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991), the Superior Court in Khalil relied upon the non-binding, plurality opinion issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 688 A.2d 1179 (1997) and its own opinion in Collas v. Garnick, 425 Pa. Super. 8, 624 A.2d 117 (1993). This conclusion, however, conflicts with the Superior Court’s 2015 opinion in Abeln v. Eidelman, 1978 EDA 2013, 2015 WL 7573233, at *2 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2015), in which the court held that “Muhammad remains as controlling precedent until a true majority of the Supreme Court rules otherwise.” Fortunately for the defendant in Khalil, the Superior Court was able to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the malpractice claims on other grounds.

^{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}