Case Name: Victor A. COHEN, Appellant, v. Mary H. MOORKAMP and Stone, Leyton & Gershman, P.C., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-12-07
Citations: 157 S.W.3d 234
Docket Number: No. ED 84807
Parties: Victor A. COHEN, Appellant, v. Mary H. MOORKAMP and Stone, Leyton & Gershman, P.C., Respondents.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Victor A. COHEN, Appellant, v. Mary H. MOORKAMP and Stone, Leyton & Gershman, P.C., Respondents.
No. ED 84807.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 7, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 9, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied April 5, 2005.
Laurence D. Mass, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Joseph F. Devereux, Jr., Robert L. Dev-ereux, Micheál D. Hart, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Victor A. Cohen ("Cohen") appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing his petition for legal malpractice against Mary H. Moorkamp ("Moorkamp") for failing to state a cause of action. Cohen argues he claims he properly pleaded a cause of action for legal malpractice because: (1) an attorney-client relationship existed between him and Moorkamp; (2) there was a causal connection between Moorkamp's alleged breach of duty and Cohen's resulting harm; and (3) there were sufficient facts alleged to support a punitive damages claim.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file. The trial court did not err in finding Cohen's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.14(b).