Pennsylvania Superior Court affirms refusal to instruct jury as to rules of professional conduct in legal professional negligence actions.

The plaintiffs Mabel and Cris Smith, mother and son, filed a professional negligence claim against two lawyers, Gerald Morrison and Scott Morrison, claiming that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duties to Mabel and Cris by simultaneously representing Mabel and her older son, non-party Richard Smith, and subsequently simultaneously representing Richard Smith and Cris Smith, even though the interests of Richard Smith were adverse to those of Mabel and Cris Smith. The case proceeded to jury trial, and the Smiths requested that, in addition to standard charges, the jury be given five additional instructions. These additional instructions were taken verbatim from the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct concerning attorneys' fiduciary obligations and the attorney-client relationship. The trial court refused to read the Smiths' proposed charges. The jury returned a defense verdict, and the Smiths appealed the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury as to a lawyer's fiduciary duty to decline representation of a client where representation presents a real or potential conflict of interest. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically state that the Rules are not designed to serve as a basis for civil liability. The Superior Court further observed that, although the Smiths were afforded the opportunity to provide the trial court with "any case where the Courts have allowed the admission or reference to the Rules of Professional Conduct," the Smiths were unable to do so. This matter was handled at the trial court level by Edwin A.D. Schwartz of our Harrisburg office and at the appellate level by Charles W. Craven of our Philadelphia office.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012