Third DCA affirms summary judgment for defendant law firm in legal malpractice action.  [Added 3/29/2010]

    "MSF" agreed to buy all the assets of what later became known as "KT Holdings."  Law Firm was retained by the seller to represent it in the transaction.  After entering into the letter of intent but before the sale closed, the president and other owners of KT Holdings decided to buy a jet.  They did not want to disclose the purchase to MSF.  The president was told by one or more of Law Firm's lawyers that title should not be placed in the selling entity.  Law Firm was not retained to handle the purchase of the jet or to provide representation at the closing.  The jet was not disclosed on the schedule of assets that were excluded from the sale.

After the sale closed some disputes arose.  MSF sued KT Holdings, its related entity ("KT Trading"), the former president, and others in a state court in Tampa.  MSF then learned about the jet and sought its "'recovery'."  In what the Third DCA referred to as an "unusual" judgment, the Tampa court ruled that the jet was the property of the buyer, MSF.  The KT entities then sued Law Firm in Miami for legal malpractice.

    The Miami court granted summary judgment for Law Firm, reasoning that "the true cause of any losses by the KT entities regarding the aircraft was their failure to assert 'mutual mistake' as an affirmative defense in the Tampa lawsuit."  The plaintiffs appealed.

    The Third DCA affirmed.  The court noted that among the "undisputed facts" were that:  the seller did not intend to include the jet in the asset sale; the purchaser did not intend to buy it; and the president acted the way he did "despite specific advice" from Law Firm to the contrary.  The appellate court stated that "the trial court correctly concluded that New York law [which governed the sale] would not countenance a result never bargained for by seller and purchaser, and that New York law would not ignore the undisputed fact that another party (KT Holdings) provided all of the purchase money for the aircraft.  Whether the mechanism is reformation of the asset purchase agreement to include the aircraft as an excluded asset, a corrective FAA conveyance to change legal title to comport with the name of the true buyer and beneficial owner (KT Holdings), or 'mutual mistake' as between KT Holdings and MSF, the outcome clearly should have been the same."  (Footnotes omitted.)  In its conclusion, the court summarized:  "MSF’s claim to the aircraft was refuted as a matter of law by the simple facts that it did not know about, bargain for, or pay for the jet.  There is no justice – none – in MSF’s attempt to turn [the president]’s simple mistake into an early multi-million dollar holiday gift to itself."

    One judge filed a lengthy dissent, contending that "[a] careful reading of the majority opinion reveals the majority improperly reached the merits of the KT entities' case."  KT Holdings USA, Inc. v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, 34 So.3d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Florida Supreme Court decides when statute of limitations on legal malpractice claim begins to run where sanctions order becomes final after underlying judgment did.  [Added 11/11/09]  --  Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, 22 So.3d 36 (Fla. 2009).

Venue of legal malpractice case based on disclosure of confidential information is proper not where disclosure took place but where resulting damage occurred.  [Added 10/21/09]  --  Rocco v. Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty & Hooker, P.A., 32 So.3d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Law firm not responsible for losses caused by one of its lawyers who acted outside scope of employment and defrauded "investors."  [Added 10/9/09]  --  Saralegui v. Sacher, Zelman, Van Sant, Paul, Beily, Hartman & Waldman, P.A., 19 So.3d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Law firm did not commit transactional malpractice by failing to obtain signature on contract where there was no meeting of the minds.  [Added 9/8/09]  --  Natural Answers, Inc. v. Carlton Fields, P.A., 20 So.3d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Middle District of Florida federal court concludes that insurer may bring legal malpractice action against lawyer it hired to defend its insured.  [Added 7/6/09]  --  Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Koeppel, 629 F.Supp.2d 1293 (M.D.Fla. 2009).

New York law firm subject to suit in Florida for legal malpractice based on legal work performed mostly in New York.  [Added 3/31/09]  --  Beta Drywall Acquisition, LLC v. Mintz & Fraade, P.C., 9 So.3d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Legal malpractice case seeking recovery of fees paid fails because client's mother, not client, had paid lawyers' fees.  [Added 10/31/08]  --  Maxakoulis v. Kotler, 995 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Failure of law firm's former client to appeal adverse judgment does not necessarily preclude its ability to maintain legal malpractice action against firm  [Added 5/13/08]  --  Technical Packaging, Inc. v. Hanchett, 992 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Trial court incorrectly applied statute of limitations in dismissing legal malpractice suit.  [Added 9/28/07]  --  Reeves v. Barrett, 964 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Florida Supreme Court reaffirms general rule that legal malpractice claims NOT assignable.  [Added 7/6/07]  --  Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Security National Servicing Corp., 969 So.2d 962 (Fla. 2007).

Lawyer who breaches client confidentiality AFTER attorney-client relationship ended may be liable to client for malpractice, but former client must allege what confidence was breached.  [Added 6/25/07]  --  Elkind v. Bennett, 958 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Trial court erred in calculating limitation period for legal malpractice claim from date of case's final judgment rather than from date of subsequent sanctions order.  [Added 7/25/06]  --  Integrated Broadcast Services, Inc. v. Mitchel, 931 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).  (NOTE:  The Florida Supreme Court agreed with this decision in Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, 22 So.3d 36 (Fla. 2009).)

Petition for writ of prohibition granted because trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try legal malpractice case against union-retained lawyer.  [Added 6/15/06]  --  Florida Education Ass'n v. Wojcicki, 930 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Settlement agreement provision requiring party to pursue legal malpractice against against its former lawyer for benefit of adverse party void as tantamount to assignment of claim.  [Added 5/16/06]  --   Michael E. Greene, P.A. v. Leasing Associates, Inc., 935 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Section 57.105 fees awarded against indigents who sued their former lawyer for malpractice before statute of limitations on underlying claim had run.  [Added 5/16/06]  --  Morales v. Marques, 931 So.2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Trial court erred in dismissing legal malpractice claim for alleged fraud on the court in underlying representation.   [Added 3/21/06]  --  Cherubino v. Fenstersheib and Fox, P.A., 925 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Extrinsic evidence of testator's intent may be admissible in legal malpractice case brought by personal representative of testator's estate.  [Added 3/3/06]  --  Gallo v. Brady, 925 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Fourth DCA expands exception to general rule that legal malpractice claims are not assignable.  [12/2/05]  --  Security National Servicing Corp. v. Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A., 916 So.2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Plaintiff in legal malpractice claim against criminal defense lawyer must show "exoneration" of underlying crime.  [Added 6/20/05]  --  Cira v. Dillinger, 903 So.2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Fourth DCA does not take opportunity to rule on question of expert testimony concerning "the law" in legal malpractice case.  [Added 2/23/05]  --  Robinson v. Kates, 895 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).  NOTE:  For a detailed look at the use of expert testimony in lawyer disciplinary matters, see an article by Tim Chinaris titled "Even Judges Don't Know Everything:  A Call for a Presumption of Admissibility for Expert Witness Testimony in Lawyer Disciplinary Proceedings," 36 St. Mary's Law Journal 825 (2005).

Corporation's law firm owed duties to entity rather than individual shareholders; additionally, individuals waived all conflicts.  [Added 2/7/05]  --  Rudolf v. Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., 901 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Lawyer's inquiry to client about possible preparation of document did not create legal duty to prepare document; summary judgment in malpractice case affirmed.  [Added 9/1/04]  --  Lane v. Cold, 882 So.2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Defendant insured's assignment to plaintiff of proceeds of insured's malpractice action against his lawyer in exchange for non-execution of excess judgment is void as tantamount to assignment of malpractice claim.  [Added 12/10/03]  --  Weiss v. Leatherberry, 863 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2003).