Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The defendants (Connelly firm) represented plaintiff in his divorce until July 2005. In July 2006 plaintiff consulted attorney, Downey, who notified the Connelly firm of a malpractice claim in October. In March 2007 plaintiff signed an agreement to file suit, but Downey did not file. In February 2008 Downey notified the plaintiff that he was terminating representation and stated that the limitations period on the malpractice claim ran out before Downey began representation. In 2009 plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the Connelly firm, under a contract theory, and against Downey. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded claims against Downey, applying the "discovery rule" rather than the occurrence rule to negligence by the Connelly firm. Although plaintiff knew that certain witnesses were not called during a 2004 hearing, he claims that he relied on the firm's assurances and did not have constructive notice of negligence until a July 2005 hearing. The question of when the limitations period began to run was for a jury.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against defendant seeking to sue on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were exposed to the petroleum coke dust released from defendant's refinery. At issue was whether the district court's order certifying a class was an abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in determining that common issues predominated and in certifying the class where the district court had not seriously considered the administration of the trial when it failed to adequately analyze and balance the common issues against the individual issues.