Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLC
Connecticut Supreme Court
885 A.2d 163 (2005)
Gurski (plaintiff), a podiatrist, filed a petition for bankruptcy on May 12, 1994. In 1997, Gurski was sued by Lee for medical malpractice on the ground that Gurski negligently treated Lee’s feet and caused her injury. Gurski’s medical malpractice insurance company, AIG, appointed the law firm of Rosenblum and Filan, LLC (law firm) to represent Gurski. Over the course of litigation, AIG informed Gurski that Lee’s claim against him was of a type that was not covered by his insurance benefits. AIG notified Gurski that he would need to obtain other counsel, as AIG would no longer pay the law firm to represent him. On July 6, 1998, the law firm notified Gurski that it had filed a motion to withdraw its appearance, that a hearing would be held on that motion, and that Gurski should seek other counsel. On both July 9, 1998 and August 27, 1998, the law firm informed Gurski of settlement hearings on Lee’s claim against him, and counseled him to attend the hearings. Neither Gurski nor the law firm attended these hearings, and a default judgment was entered against Gurski. Gurski was not informed of this judgment. On October 20, 1998, the law firm’s motion to withdraw its appearance for Gurski was granted. Gurski was not informed of this decision. On December 21, 1998, Gurski was informed that judgment for Lee in the amount of $152,000 in damages had been rendered against him. Gurski obtained new counsel, who filed a motion to open the judgment in Connecticut state court. The trial court denied the motion to open the judgment. Due to his bankruptcy, Gurski was unable to afford to pay this judgment to Lee. Gurski proposed a compromise whereby he would assign a claim for legal malpractice against the law firm to Lee. Lee’s judgment against Gurski would be fulfilled by the proceeds obtained from a successful legal malpractice claim against the law firm, up to $152,000. Gurski’s motion to compromise was granted by the bankruptcy court, and Gurski commenced a legal malpractice claim against the law firm in Connecticut state court. The jury awarded Gurski $136,800 in damages against the law firm, which was assigned to Lee to pay for the judgment for medical negligence Lee previously obtained against Gurski. The law firm appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 148,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.