Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds no reason to overturn Muhammad.

On July 20, 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued its opinion in this case and determined that the case before it clearly fell under at least one of the recognized exceptions to the “Muhammad Doctrine,” which prevents clients from suing their attorneys when they are unhappy with the amounts of settlements. See, Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991). The Khalil opinion threatened to overturn the Muhammad Doctrine entirely, but did not do so. The Supreme Court noted that the amicus brief submitted jointly by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Allegheny County Bar Association, and the Philadelphia Bar Association asserted the Khalil matter fell under the fraud exception to Muhammad and there was, thus, no compelling reason to overturn Muhammad at this time (the amicus brief’s primary author was Josh Byrne who is a co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Amicus Committee). A scathing concurrence by Justice Wecht suggests the continuing viability of Muhammad is likely to reappear before our Supreme Court again soon.

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey , all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.