Lord v. Parisi

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, under Hale, an incidental beneficiary could not maintain a legal malpractice claim
• looking to the terms of the agreement and “the surrounding circumstances” to determine whether the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary
• Oregon “adhere[s] to the general rule that only a client may sue his or her attorney for malpractice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).