441 Pa. Super. 304 - McMahon v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The salutary policy which formed the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in Muhammad is not equally applicable where the lawyer’s alleged negligence does not lie in the exercise of judgment regarding an amount to be accepted or paid in settlement of a claim, but, rather, in the failure to advise the client properly about well established principles of law and the impact of an agreement upon the substantive rights and obligations of the client. A person about to enter a contract, all would agree, should be entitled to rely on the advice of his or her lawyer regarding the impact of the terms of the agreement. . . . “With respect to counsel’s duty to advise a client, he or she is required to exercise the same degree of care as if advising a client about an agreement which is not part of a settlement of pending litigation. See: Collas v. Garnick, 425 Pa. Super. 8 , 624 A.2d 117 [1993]. See also: White v. Kreithen, 435 Pa. Super. 115, 121-22 , 644 A.2d 1262, 1265 (1994) (client may maintain malpractice action where attorney’s negligent conduct before settlement caused damage).” Id. at 312, 657 A.2d at 941 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 36 Pa. D. & C.4th 441 - Brotman v. Bernbaum

2. ““The rule announced by the Supreme Court in Muhammad is limited to cases involving facts similar to those which caused the court’s ruling. . . . Muhammad was also held to be determinative where the client merely expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of her marital award and averred that the lawyer’s conduct had caused her to receive ‘a deficient amount’ of marital property, alimony and other available relief. Spirer v. Freeland & Kronz, 434 Pa. Super. 341, 344-46 , 643 A.2d 673, 675 (1994). Finally, in Martos v. Concilio, 427 Pa. Super. 612 , 629 A.2d 1037 (1993), Muhammad was held to be controlling where the lawyer’s alleged negligence had consisted of an ‘alleged failure to adequately represent (the client) in negotiations of the settlement agreement.’ [Martos,] at 613, 629 A.2d at 1038 . These are situations in which the client perceived a deficiency in the lawyer’s exercise of his or her professional judgment.” Id. at 312-13, 657 A.2d at 941-42 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 36 Pa. D. & C.4th 441 - Brotman v. Bernbaum

3. ““Unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise, we will not interpret Muhammad to blindly protect lawyers who carelessly advise clients incorrectly about their substantive rights and the effect of a written agreement which is intended to resolve an existing dispute. Because the decision in Miller v. Berschler ... reaches a contrary result, it is expressly overruled. To do otherwise would do a disservice to clients who must rely upon the advice of their lawyers before entering agreements involving future obligations and also to careful and conscientious practitioners who undertake to advise their clients fully before the client is asked to execute an agreement, whether simple or complex, and who protect their clients, or at least advise them, against contractual provisions which impose more onerous burdens than the substantive law requires.” McMahon v. Shea, supra at 313 , 657 A.2d at 942 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Pa. D. & C.4th 136 - Knapp v. Murphy