Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim when “[t]he only ‘assistance’” she alleged was “performance of routine accounting duties—i.e., preparing financial statements,” etc.
• noting that, in cases asserting aiding and abetting liability against professionals such as lawyers, “substantial assistance” means more than “the provision of routine professional services”
• providing that “the relationship between the defendant and the primary tortfeasor” as well as “the nature of the primary tortfeasor’s activity” are permissible considerations when ascertaining defendant’s knowledge of a breach of fiduciary duty
• relying on Camp and explaining that “defendant’s state of mind ... come[s] into play” when determining whether conduct constitutes substantial assistance
• applying Restatement (Second) of Torts and establishing three elements for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
• [A]iding and abetting liability does not 27 require the existence of, nor does it create, a pre-existing duty of care . . . .

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).