Case ID: sw2d_842/html/0587-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sanford J. GUBERNIK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEINBERG & CROTZER, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
    No. 61973.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Dec. 29, 1992.
    Sanford J. Gubernik, pro se.
    James J. Hennelly, Lashley & Baer, P.C., St. Louis, for defendants/respondents.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition which attempted to allege malpractice by his former attorneys. We affirm. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).