A malpractice case against Drinker Biddle & Reath may refine a New Jersey Supreme Court doctrine that disallows legal malpractice claims after the underlying case settles. Malpractice plaintiffs lawyers are critical of last year's Puder v. Buchel ruling because they say settlements induced by lawyer error seldom make clients whole and that cases that would have settled before Puder will now drag on. Drinker Biddle is a defendant in a case in which many Puder issues are at play.
May 23, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A malpractice case against 450-lawyer Drinker Biddle & Reath has a chance to refine a New Jersey Supreme Court doctrine that disallows legal malpractice claims after the underlying case settles.
The justices held last year in Puder v. Buchel, 183 N.J. 428, that a matrimonial client who settled a botched case and told the judge she was satisfied couldn’t pursue a malpractice claim for additional relief from the allegedly errant lawyer.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
