PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia law firm has successfully defended itself from a charge of legal malpractice.
Plaintiff Philip Lawrence Moriarty of Hanover first filed suit against Zeff Law Firm, LLC and Gregg L. Zeff of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 30, 2020.
The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 29, 2020.
The incident which formed the basis for the instant legal malpractice action involves a separate, underlying claim of legal malpractice that the defendants allegedly failed to commence against attorney Eric J. Weisbrod, stemming from his handling of two criminal defense matters – including a hearing on revocation of parole and probation, known as a Gagnon II hearing – for an Adams County criminal case, and a bail hearing in connection with charges for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault and harassment.
Moriarty’s complaint alleges that as a result of the underlying malpractice claim, his parole/probation for charges associated with recklessly endangering another person and resisting arrest was revoked on or about April 28, 2016, and he was not released from confinement until March 27, 2018 – when his parole revocation was later vacated.
The defendants felt in an Aug. 10, 2020 motion that in the interest of justice and for convenience of both the parties and the witnesses involved and that after analysis under the Jumara public-private factors, a transfer should be made to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
“Plaintiff has alleged a series of events relating to an underlying malpractice claim against his former criminal defense attorney which occurred in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff then retained an attorney who practices primarily out of his Mount Laurel, New Jersey office. Defendant eventually terminated plaintiff as a client by sending him correspondence to his residence in York County, Pennsylvania,” per the memorandum.
Since Moriarty resides in York County, the Middle District was closer to his residence for purposes of attending depositions and trial. Therefore, according to the defendants, he would not have been inconvenienced if this matter is transferred to the Middle District.
Furthermore, the motion said the majority of the documents and records are located in the Middle District. Those records include attorney Weisbrod’s files, attorney Weisbrod’s financial and insurance records, treatment records of Moriarty, Moriarty’s employment or wage history records, files relating to the two Adams County criminal matters and matters relating to Adams County Work Release Program.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Michael M. Baylson chose to deny the transfer motion and an associated motion for sanctions on Sept. 30, 2020.
“This motion to transfer venue stems from a two-tiered legal malpractice claim: Plaintiff Moriarty alleges that defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to prosecute a separate legal malpractice claim against his defense attorney for actions during plaintiff’s criminal defense and parole hearings,” Baylson stated.
“The question in front of this Court is which alleged malpractice should determine venue: Defendants’ actions in the Eastern District or plaintiff’s former defense attorney’s in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Because the relevant conduct and claim are defendants’ actions in allegedly mishandling plaintiff’s now-expired prior claim – and because that conduct did not occur in the Middle District of Pennsylvania – the Court will deny defendants’ motion to transfer venue.”
Baylson ruled that the “determinative” events related to the issue of venue took place in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction.
UPDATE
The case then found itself in arbitration for a time, after which no resolution was reached by the fall of 2021 and matters proceeded towards a jury trial to take place this week.
After a three-day trial, it was reported that the defendants had prevailed. Financial compensation that accompanied the judgment, if any, was not disclosed.
“In accordance with the verdict rendered by the jury in this matter on Jan. 26, it is ordered that judgment be and the same is hereby entered in favor of defendants, Zeff Law Firm, LLC and Gregg Zeff, Esq., and against plaintiff Philip Lawrence Moriarty,” Baylson’s Deputy Clerk, Lori K. DiSanti, said.
The plaintiff was represented by Mark B. Frost of Frost & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Pamela J. Devine of Bardsley Law, in Berwyn.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03696
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com