It bills itself as "The Oldest Law Journal in the United States", and reports today on this legal malpractice dismissal in Pennsylvania.  Here, in an estate/inheritance legal malpractice, the case was dismissed on motion, and the appeal ran afoul of a Penn statute against vagueness.  What follows is a discussion of the statute:

"A Superior Court panel has affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice action brought against Fox Rothschild by two brothers who claimed the firm’s handling of a family will left their inheritance lighter than it should have been.

However, the appellate judges in Hess v. Fox Rothschild ruled that Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Annette M. Rizzo had been wrong to reject the brothers’ appeal as too vaguely worded.

The case sheds light on a rare theme of the ongoing Rule 1925(b) saga.

Typically, state court judges have used that appellate procedural rule to bounce an appeal if the appellate statement was too long and/or raised too many issues."

But the rule also directed attorneys not to make their statements overly vague, and a number of appeals were quashed under that provision of the rule.

When the justices approved amendments to Rule 1925 earlier this month, they prospectively precluded judges from nixing an appeal solely because of the number of issues raised. That measure was likely in response to practitioners’ gripes that appeals in complex or high-stakes cases might necessarily involve dozens of issues.

But the high court also added new language to the rule that will permit civil litigation appellants to attach to their 1925(b) statements a preface explaining why the statement has been phrased in general terms if don’t believe they can "readily discern the basis" for trial judges’ decisions.