David R. Williams v. Harold Mordkofsky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a legal malpractice claim could stand if the parties “reached an understanding” that the third-party was an intended beneficiary of the conduct in question
• stating that a legal malpractice claim could stand if the parties \reached an understanding\ that the third-party was an intended beneficiary of the conduct in question
• rejecting argument that the continuous representation rule was “broad enough to allow extension of the rule to any negotiations between an attorney and a former client that seek to repair damage done during the representation”
• \The rule's primary purpose is to avoid placing a client in the untenable position of suing his attorney while the latter continues to represent him.\
• “Had Intermountain declared bankruptcy, it is certain that the Williamses would not be so quick to request that we disregard the corporate form.”
• “The rule’s primary purpose is to avoid placing a client in the untenable position of suing his attorney while the latter continues to represent him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).