Outerlimits Techs., LLC v. O’Connor, No. 169 EDA 2023, 2023 WL 8524299 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2023) (non-precedential decision)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s legal malpractice action against a law firm on the basis of the gist of the action doctrine. The appellant filed a complaint in assumpsit against the law firm, alleging legal malpractice premised on a breach of contract. The appellant alleged that the law firm had provided it legal assistance to secure patents and trademarks and for other intellectual property matters. In 2014, the appellant realized that it had executed numerous flawed contracts that resulted in financial losses and the loss of intellectual property rights and attributed the flaws to the law firm. However, the appellant did not file its legal malpractice action against the law firm until almost four years later, on December 1, 2018, forcing it to proceed under a breach of contract theory, only.
The law firm filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the breach of contract action alleging that the “gist” of the action against it was negligence. The trial court agreed, granted the law firm’s motion and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the Superior Court engaged in a detailed discussion of legal malpractice law and the court’s recent application of the gist of the action doctrine to professional liability actions to bar contract claims when the “gist of the action” sounds in negligence. The Superior Court upheld the trial court’s decision finding that “the substance of the allegations in the complaint confirms that Appellee’s purported failure to exercise the requisite level of skill and knowledge was the basis for Appellant’s request for damages.”
