EDWARD PENNINGTON, III, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY CAGGIANO, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the attorneys' withdrawal was justified and the client's subsequent failure to obtain new counsel did not constitute malpractice.
Pennington sued his former attorneys for malpractice after a summary judgment ended his medical malpractice suit. The attorneys had been permitted to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We elect to dispense with oral argument in this case.
Pennington filed this malpractice action against his attorneys because a summary judgment against him ended his previous suit for medical malpractice. In the earlier aetion, Pennington’s criticism of his attorneys caused them to move to withdraw because of irreconcilable differences. After notice, the trial court granted the lawyers’ motion to withdraw. Pennington proceeded in that action pro se and, some sixty days after the lawyers were permitted to withdraw, a summary judgment was entered for the defense. No appeal was taken from the judge’s decision to permit the attorneys to withdraw.
In his malpractice action against his lawyers, it is the fact of their withdrawal that is the core of Pennington’s complaint. But the trial court in the action then pending found merit in the lawyers’ claim that irreconcilable differences with the client required them to withdraw. This ruling was not appealed. Pennington had ample opportunity, almost 90 days from the lawyers’ motion and over 60 days from the order permitting them to withdraw, to employ replacement counsel. The lawyers were not responsible for Pennington’s failure or inability to do so.
Pennington filed the first two complaints in this action pro se. An attorney filed the complaint finally dismissed by the court with prejudice. We agree with the trial court that none of the complaints state a cause of action against the lawyers for malpractice and there is no indiction that a fourth try would do any better. AFFIRMED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crompton v. State, 728 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion, but we do so without prejudice to appellant’s ability to file a properly pled rale 3.800(a) motion in the trial court. See Combs v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D260a, 723 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). ERVIN, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Spivey v. State, 737 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…rial court. State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) (“[Cjredit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.”); Combs v. State, 723 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). AFFIRMED. MINER, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Waltzer v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)