Case Name: Sanford J. GUBERNIK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEINBERG & CROTZER, et al., Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1992-12-29
Citations: 842 S.W.2d 587
Docket Number: No. 61973
Parties: Sanford J. GUBERNIK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEINBERG & CROTZER, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 842
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).