## Facts

- Steven Kramer, a New York attorney, represented a client in a federal antitrust action and hired Jeffrey S. Nowak, a Pennsylvania attorney, to assist as an associate/independent contractor on that matter.
- A jury returned a verdict awarding the client $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.
- Kramer directed Nowak to prepare a motion for prejudgment interest; Nowak drafted a motion seeking approximately $4 million.
- The trial court struck the punitive-damages award, reduced compensatory damages by about $2 million, and awarded roughly $2 million in prejudgment interest.
- Kramer appealed but did not challenge the prejudgment-interest calculation.
- The former client later pursued a legal-malpractice claim against Kramer, alleging (among other things) mishandling of prejudgment interest; arbitration resulted in an award of about $440,000 against Kramer.
- Kramer then sued Nowak in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking to shift responsibility for the arbitration loss to Nowak.

## Issues

1. Whether an associate/contract lawyer performing work for a firm’s client owes a tort duty to the supervising attorney that supports a malpractice claim by the supervisor against the associate.
2. Whether the supervising attorney may recover on a breach-of-contract theory for the associate’s allegedly incompetent legal work performed for the client.
3. Whether the supervising attorney may obtain contribution from the associate for amounts paid on the supervisor’s malpractice liability to the client.

## Decision

- The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for Nowak on all claims.
- The court held Nowak did not owe Kramer an independent duty of care in tort for work performed in the course of representing the client under Kramer’s supervision.
- The court held the breach-of-contract claim was, in substance, a repackaged malpractice claim and failed for the same reason.
- The court held contribution was unavailable because Kramer did not establish joint liability of Nowak to the client with respect to the malpractice arbitration award.

## Legal Principles

- In legal-malpractice claims arising from representation, the duty of professional care runs to the client; an associate’s work for the client, performed as part of the firm’s representation, does not create a separate actionable duty owed to the supervising attorney.
- Ordinary agency and risk-allocation principles place responsibility for subordinate negligence on the supervising attorney/employer as part of the cost of providing legal services to clients.
- A plaintiff cannot obtain malpractice-type recovery by recharacterizing the alleged failure to exercise professional care as a contract claim absent a distinct contractual duty owed directly to the plaintiff.
- Contribution requires joint liability to the same injured party; absent a showing that the associate is legally liable to the client as a joint tortfeasor in relation to the resolved malpractice obligation, contribution does not lie.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the action, ruling that a supervising attorney may not use tort, contract, or contribution theories to shift to an associate the supervisor’s malpractice liability arising from the associate’s work performed for the firm’s client under the supervisor’s control.


Kramer v. Nowak, 908 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Pa. 1995)