A professional negligence case against Schmidt Ronca & Kramer and attorney James R. Ronca was properly dismissed as part of a sanction against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.

In Papadoplos v. Schmidt Ronca & Kramer, a three-judge panel ruled Schmidt Ronca clearly sought dismissal of the action because of the alleged spoliation of computer hard drives by plaintiff Peter Papadoplos, despite claims by Papadoplos and his wife Judith that the law firm never sought such dismissal.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]