In the case of J.C. v. Fanucci & Kolcharno, No. 2022-CV-3490 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 4, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a case where a client sued her former attorney and his law firm for wanton and reckless legal malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, along with claims for vicarious liability, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention relative to claims that an attorney at the law firm pressured and extorted the client to engage in sexual activity with him as a condition of his continued representation of the client relative to criminal court matters.
Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, in a 56 page Opinion, held, in part, that an attorney’s sexual misconduct toward a client constituted a viable basis for a legal malpractice action.
The court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff would need to have alleged that she had been found innocent in her underlying criminal matter in order to pursue legal malpractice claims against her attorney. The court rejected that argument, in part, because the Plaintiff did not claim that she had been wrongfully convicted relative to the underlying matter.
In this decision, the court overruled the attorney’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claim of malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and with regard to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court additionally overruled objections by the Defendant attorney’s law firm with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims against the firm for vicarious liability and negligent hiring.
The court additionally allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the claims of recklessness and punitive damages. In ruling in this regard, the court cited, in part, to a Pennsylvania Bar Quarterly article by Daniel E. Cummins that provided an overview of recent Pennsylvania jurisprudence on the viability of claims of recklessness in personal injury matters based on claims of negligence.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
The court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff would need to have alleged that she had been found innocent in her underlying criminal matter in order to pursue legal malpractice claims against her attorney. The court rejected that argument, in part, because the Plaintiff did not claim that she had been wrongfully convicted relative to the underlying matter.
In this decision, the court overruled the attorney’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claim of malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and with regard to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court additionally overruled objections by the Defendant attorney’s law firm with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims against the firm for vicarious liability and negligent hiring.
The court additionally allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the claims of recklessness and punitive damages. In ruling in this regard, the court cited, in part, to a Pennsylvania Bar Quarterly article by Daniel E. Cummins that provided an overview of recent Pennsylvania jurisprudence on the viability of claims of recklessness in personal injury matters based on claims of negligence.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.