Some combinations are simply counter-intuitive…ice cream and pickles, waffles and fried chicken, the US House of Representatives and legal malpractice.  Once explained, they are clear as a bell.  The South Carolina Appellate Blog explains how the US legislative body got involved in this legal malpractice case:

"In Spence v. Wingate, the South Carolina Court

Frederick Rehberger, appellant, v Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP, et al., respondents.

(Index No. 30120/05)
2007-05158
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 3187;
April 8, 2008, Decided

Plaintiff’s Suffolk County case dismissed on 3211(a)(5) grounds, and reversed upon adequate showing of continuous representation.

Milton B. Shapiro

Bankruptcy legal malpractice is again in the news.  As the economy cycles through bankruptcy issues, attorneys advising large corporations become targets for the trustees as well as the creditors.  Latest in the news is the Catholic Medical Center and McDermott, Will & Emery.

From Law.Com: "A bankruptcy trustee for Saint Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers of

This New Jersey real estate case makes little sense, unless you read it as envy transformed into litigation.  Plaintiff-seller decides to sell 6 lots for $ 2,000,000.  Everyone follows the contract of sale, which provided for interim payments, penalty payments, and no assignments.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

MARIO ARGENZIANO and MARAGEN CORPORATION

This case from New Jersey illustrates the difficult question of privity, which is another way to say, does plaintiff have a relationship with the attorney such that he may sue?

In SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

CHARLES W. GEYER, on behalf of ONE WASHINGTON PARK URBAN RENEWAL
ASSOCIATES (OWPURA
),  v. PITNEY,

Jusuf Becovic, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v Poisson & Hackett, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

3142, 118056/04

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 2644; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2594

March 20, 2008, Decided
March 20, 2008, Entered

Plaintiffs were physically injured, and the placement and maintenance of a