Cost v. Cost, 450 Pa. Super. 685 (1996)
PA Underlying Commercial Action
Student Contributor: Rachel Morris
Facts: In connection with the “buyout” of ownership interests in several family businesses, the Plaintiff signed various agreements including “spousal joinder” forms. The spousal joinder forms created an indemnification obligation and release on the part of the Plaintiff in favor of the party selling the ownership interests and another third-party. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action against the attorney for the seller alleging breach of his professional duty to explain the legal ramifications of the buyout, and more specifically, the consequences of the various forms signed by the Plaintiff to complete the transaction.
Issue: Is a lawyer liable for malpractice because he failed to explain to a non-client the legal ramifications of entering into a particular transaction or signing certain documents?
Ruling: No, absent any written or oral retainer agreement between the lawyer and the complainant. Here, the court found that there was (1) no express contract for legal representation between the lawyer and the Plaintiff, (2) the Plaintiff never sought advice or assistance from the lawyer, and (3) the lawyer never expressly or impliedly agreed to represent the Plaintiff. Therefore, the court ruled that the Plaintiff could have had no reasonable expectation that the lawyer was looking out for her interests, much less that he had any duty to explain the legal significance of the documents she signed.
Lesson: A plaintiff’s subjective belief that an attorney is representing her interests is insufficient, absent other indicia of an express or implied attorney-client relationship, to successfully assert a cause of action in legal malpractice.
Tagged with: Commercial, Non-clients, Pennsylvania, Privity
Posted in: Commercial, Pennsylvania, Privity