As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments challenging a 30-year-old precedent restricting dissatisfied plaintiffs from suing their lawyers over settlement outcomes, some justices asked why attorneys should be subject to different standards for malpractice than people in other professions.

During Wednesday’s arguments in the case captioned Khalil v. Williams, several of the justices suggested that the existing standards for determining a case’s merit could be adequate to vet legal malpractice claims during and that, contrary to the defense’s argument, striking the precedent would not bring about a flood of suits against lawyers.