Legal malpractice claim fails on summary judgment because plaintiff dropped suit against party responsible for damages and thus suffered no redressable harm from lawyer's work.  [Added 12/3/11]

    Lawyer represented Clients in negotiating the purchase of a commercial condominium unit.  The agreement required the seller to convey a title free and clear of any liens or mortgages.  Seller delivered a special warranty deed for the unit that failed to disclose that the unit actually was encumbered by a construction loan mortgage.  Clients sued the seller and others including the Developer.  At some point Clients dropped the suit against Developer, apparently believing that Developer would be going into bankruptcy.

    Clients then filed a legal malpractice suit against Lawyer.  Lawyer moved for summary judgment, "arguing that [Clients] could not establish the requisite redressable harm and proximate causation needed to prevail on its malpractice claim."  The trial court entered judgment for Lawyer, and Clients appealed.

    The Third DCA affirmed.  For a lawyer to prevail on a motion for summary judgment against a client in a legal malpractice action, the lawyer must show that the client did not suffer redressable harm as result of the lawyer's work.  Lawyer did this.  Because contract interpretation is a matter of law, the appeals court "examine[d] the agreement drafted by [Lawyer] to determine whether [Clients] would have been entitled to recover against the Developer under that agreement in the underlying action.  [Citations omitted.]  If so, [Clients] would not have suffered redressable harm from [Lawyer]’s action and would thus be barred from bringing a legal malpractice action."

    The agreement drafted by Lawyer required the Developer to convey marketable title to the property.  Developer breached this agreement, and so Clients "would thus have been able to recover against the Developer had they not abandoned their earlier lawsuit against the Developer.  As the proximate cause of [Clients'] harm was abandoning the lawsuit to enforce the agreement against the Developer, and not the terms drafted by [Lawyer] in the agreement, [Clients] suffered no redressable harm from [Lawyer]’s work and are thus barred from pursuing an action for legal malpractice."  KJB Village Property, LLC v. Craig M. Dorne, P.A., __ So.3d ___, 36 Fla.L.Weekly D2557 (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D11-231, 11/23/2011), 2011 WL 5864817.

Enforcement of representation agreement clause requiring arbitration of legal malpractice claims is not against public policy, per Second DCA.  [Added 6/20/11]  --  Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP v. Forier, 67 So.3d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Law firm may be liable in legal malpractice action for harm to former client occurring after firm withdrew from representation.  [Added 4/17/11]  --  Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey, 59 So.3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration in legal malpractice case.  [Added 3/30/11]  --  Mintz & Fraade, P.C. v. Beta Drywall Acquisition, LLC, 59 So.3d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Court erred in vacating order staying legal malpractice case while underlying case was still pending.  [Added 12/9/10]  --  Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, P.A. v. Bal Bay Realty, Ltd., 48 So.3d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

In legal malpractice case venue not proper in county where negligent acts allegedly occurred because resulting damages did not occur there.  [Added 11/27/10]  --  Moscowitz v. Oldham, 48 So.3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Failure to allege ultimate facts relating to duty and breach leads to dismissal of legal malpractice complaint.  [Added 10/28/10]  --  K.R. Exchange Services, Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey, Ittleman, PL, 48 So.3d 889 (Fla. 3d  2010).

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