Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a complex legal malpractice action after a two week trial. The case arose out of land use planning, and land development involving the faulty design of drainage from a new development. The property for the development had been purchased from a local farmer who retained the attorneys to file suit against the developer for problems and damages associated with poor drainage, erosion, fines and penalties, and engineering fees. During the course of the underlying litigation, the attorneys advised their client orally, and in writing, and guaranteed and warranted to their client that the client would never have any liability or responsibility for engineering fees, costs, expenses or remediation related to the problems giving rise tot he suit. However, after the attorneys were fired, and while the farmers were represented by new counsel, the court ruled that the farmers were indeed liable, and responsible. The jury found that there was no deviation from the standard of care in the handling of the land use case, and that although the attorneys had guaranteed and warranted to their client that the clients would not be responsible for engineering fees, costs and all of the remediation, and fines and penalties, that under the Doctrine of Impossibility of Performance, the attorneys were not liable to their former clients because the clients had questioned whether the engineer's plan would be sufficient to cure the problems with drainage from the new development. Our expert offered opinions that the attorneys were not in a position to fulfill their contractual guarantee and warranty based upon the proofs that the plaintiffs were disagreeing with the engineer's design for the remedy.