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.

This content has been archived.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]