Case Name: Raymond J. LINDEMANN, Individually and as Trustee of the Raymond J. Lindemann Revocable Living Trust Dated May 22, 1989, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Michael A. LAWDER, et al., Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-12-02
Citations: 122 S.W.3d 693
Docket Number: No. ED 82194
Parties: Raymond J. LINDEMANN, Individually and as Trustee of the Raymond J. Lindemann Revocable Living Trust Dated May 22, 1989, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Michael A. LAWDER, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and MARY K. HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 122
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Raymond J. LINDEMANN, Individually and as Trustee of the Raymond J. Lindemann Revocable Living Trust Dated May 22, 1989, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Michael A. LAWDER, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 82194.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 2, 2003.
Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd., Robert W. Bosslet, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C., Kevin F. O’Malley, Michelle M. Drake, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants/Respondents Hinshaw & Culbertson and Michael A. Lawder.
Moser and Marsalek, P.C., Brian R. Plegge, Robyn Greifzu Fox, Cahterine Yale Jochens, Gino P. Gusmano, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant/Respondent Fortis M. Lawder.
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP, John C. Rasp, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and MARY K. HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Raymond J. Lindemann, individually and as Trustee of Raymond J. Lindemann Revocable Living Trust (collectively Linde-mann), appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing with prejudice both legal malpractice claims in Lindemann's amended petition upon the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by Michael A. Lawder, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Fortis M. Lawder, and Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. Upon de novo review, we find no genuine issue of material fact or error of law. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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 84.16(b).