## Facts

- Robert M. McMahon retained attorneys John G. Shea, Phyllis McCormick Shea, Michael S. Dinney, and their firm to represent him in divorce proceedings.
- A court order required McMahon to pay weekly support to his wife and children.
- The spouses executed a written settlement agreement allocating the weekly payment between child support and alimony and providing a termination clause tied to the youngest child reaching 21, emancipation, or finishing college (whichever occurred last); McMahon also agreed to maintain health insurance during the support period.
- The parties stipulated that the settlement agreement would be incorporated into, but not merged with, the final divorce decree.
- After the divorce decree, McMahon’s ex-wife remarried; McMahon petitioned to terminate alimony, arguing remarriage terminated alimony under the Divorce Code.
- The trial court denied termination on the ground that the agreement survived as an independent contract because it was incorporated but not merged; appellate review left that ruling in place.
- McMahon then sued his former attorneys for malpractice, alleging negligent advice and drafting in failing to structure the agreement so that alimony would terminate upon remarriage.

## Issues

1. Whether a legal malpractice claim based on alleged negligent drafting/advice about incorporating but not merging a marital settlement agreement into a divorce decree is barred by the rule limiting settlement-based malpractice claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the settlement-based malpractice bar did not apply to McMahon’s claim.
- The Court concluded McMahon was not attacking the decision to settle or the settlement’s financial adequacy, but rather alleged negligent professional performance in the legal structuring and execution of the settlement’s effect.
- The Court determined dismissal on the settlement-bar rationale was improper, leaving the decision that allowed the malpractice action to proceed in place.

## Legal Principles

- Malpractice claims that merely challenge the wisdom, fairness, or amount of a settlement accepted by a client are barred to protect settlement finality.
- That bar does not extend to malpractice claims alleging technical legal errors in drafting, execution, or procedural structuring of settlement instruments.
- In domestic relations practice, whether a settlement agreement is merged into a decree (typically subject to statutory modification/termination) versus incorporated but not merged (typically enforced as a separate contract) can materially change the parties’ post-decree rights and obligations.
- Attorneys may be liable in malpractice for negligent handling of the legal effect of a settlement agreement, even when the client does not contend the settlement terms themselves were substantively deficient.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a malpractice action to proceed where the client alleged counsel’s negligent drafting and advice about merger versus incorporation caused alimony obligations to survive remarriage, distinguishing such technical-execution claims from barred challenges to settlement adequacy.


McMahon v. Shea, 688 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1997)