McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124 (1997)
Student Contributor: Justin Lieberman
Underlying Divorce Matter
Facts: The husband in an underlying divorce action brought a professional malpractice suit against his attorneys, claiming that they had failed to properly advise him in his divorce settlement. More specifically, the husband claimed that his attorneys had failed to advise him as to the length of his duty to pay alimony and to generally read and review the alimony agreement in its entirety.
The wife remarried two months after the divorce was finalized, and husband moved to terminate his alimony payments. The court denied the termination of alimony payments, holding that the alimony agreement survived the divorce since it was not merged with the divorce decree. The court ordered continued payment of alimony until the parties’ youngest child turned twenty-one. Consequently, husband further alleged that his attorneys had been negligent in advising him to stipulate that the alimony agreement be incorporated but not merged with the divorce decree.
The attorneys argued that husband’s action had to be dismissed, since a dissatisfied plaintiff may not file a malpractice suit following a settlement to which he agreed, unless he could show he was fraudulently induced into settling the action.
Issue: Can an attorney be held liable for advice rendered to a client in a settlement to which the client subsequently agreed?
Holding: The Court rejected the attorneys’ argument and held that an attorney’s use of ordinary skill and knowledge extends to the conduct of settlement negotiations:
The fact that the legal document at issue had the effect of settling a case should not exempt his attorneys from liability…An attorney may not shield himself from liability in failing to exercise the requisite degree of professional skill in settling the case by asserting that he was merely following a certain strategy or exercising professional judgment.
Lesson: Negligence in failing to advise a client as to the controlling law applicable to a contract is actionable as malpractice, even if the contract serves to settle the underlying dispute.
Tagged with: Duties: Competence, Family Law, Pennsylvania, settlement, Standard of Care
Posted in: Duties: Competence, Family Law, Pennsylvania, Standard of Care