Court Opinion

ID: 9702824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:25:40.207431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:53.002741
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge, concurring:
Given the broad reach of Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 867, 112 S.Ct. 196, 116 L.Ed.2d 156 (1991), I join the majority. I do so because I believe that the Supreme Court opinion in Muhammad has provided lawyers with a defense to malpractice claims which is well nigh absolute. Since, happily, the great majority of civil actions are terminated by settlement and, also happily, it is extremely rare for cases to occur where attorneys induce settlements by fraudulent activity, the immunity provided by Muhammad may, as a result of the wide doctrinal sweep of that decision, provide attorneys with an unmerited shield from otherwise valid claims by Pennsylvania litigants and clients. *83See Miller v. Berschler, 423 Pa.Super. 405, 621 A.2d 595 (1993).