Attorneys are relied upon for their skill and judgment in the service they provide their clients. If an attorney’s lack of skill leads to a harmful result, a straightforward legal malpractice claim arises. However, where the claim involves an attorney’s exercise of professional judgment that ultimately proves wrong or harmful to the client’s case, courts, including in Pennsylvania, have generally held that the attorney is not liable for malpractice pursuant to the attorney judgment rule, also commonly referred to as “judgmental immunity” or “error of judgment” rule. A 2014 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the medical malpractice context, however, raises the question of whether attorney defendants and other professional negligence defendants in Pennsylvania can continue to rely on the judgment rule at trial.
Historically, the attorney judgment rule has acted to bar negligence claims based on an attorney’s mere error in judgment. For example, in Navar v. Tribler Orpett & Meyer, No. 1-14-2641 (Ill. App. Ct., Oct. 19, 2015), the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a ruling by the trial court finding that Manuel Navar’s malpractice claims against Tribler Orpett & Meyer were precluded pursuant to the Illinois rule affording immunity to lawyers for errors of judgment. The underlying malpractice allegations related to Tribler’s representation of Navar in a suit that arose out of Navar’s sale of a residential real estate property to Dahlia Ponce. The suit between Navar and Ponce ultimately resulted in a judgment in favor of Ponce and an award of damages totaling $98,500. Following the adverse judgment, Navar sued Tribler, alleging that during the pendency of the suit with Ponce, Tribler negligently advised Navar that he would prevail in the action and failed to advise Navar to settle the case.
