Greathouse v. McConnell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that although client alleged separate and distinct causes of action, crux of each claim was that attorney did not provide adequate legal representation
• noting that plaintiff’s DTPA cause of action against former attorney was impermissible attempt to “fracture” legal-malpractice claim into another cause of action
• complaint that lawyer misrepresented legal services would be of competent quality when they were not constituted a negligence claim and not a DTPA claim
• misrepresentations alleged as claims for breach of fiduciary-duty, fraud, breach of contract, and others, interpreted as claims for legal malpractice because complaint was that lawyer did not provide adequate legal representation
• when the crux of complaint is failure to provide adequate legal representation, the claim asserts legal malpractice
• complaint that lawyer misrepresented legal services would be of competent quality when they were not constituted a negligence claim and not a DTPA claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).