RUSSO V. GRIFFIN 510 A.2d 436 (1986) CASE BRIEF

RUSSO V. GRIFFIN

510 A.2d 436 (1986)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Russo (P) appealed a decision that entered a judgment for Griffin (D), attorney, in P's claim for legal malpractice.

FACTS: Joseph Russo established a paving business and in 1975 decided to turn the business over to his two sons, Anthony (P) and Francis. They got Griffin (D), a lawyer, to help them with the process of incorporation. Between 1975 and 1978 the corporation held its annual meetings at D's office. Frank wanted to purchase a laundromat. Frank and P entered into discussions concerning the sale of his interest in the corporation. The father also got involved. According to D, the main purpose of the meeting, and the documents he prepared pursuant thereto, was to protect Frank. In this regard, a $6,000 promissory note from the corporation to Frank was personally guaranteed by P and his wife, and it was secured by a chattel mortgage. Frank resigned as president and transferred his stock to the corporation. Griffin did not inform the corporation or P of the desirability of obtaining a covenant not to compete or explain the implications thereof. Three months after the transfer Frank got into the paving business. P sued D for malpractice. P presented two witnesses from out of town who said D was negligent. D introduced two witnesses from in town who said he was not. The court went with the local rule and found for D. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner