Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Jarosz v. Palmer

Supreme Court of Massachusetts
436 Mass. 526 (2002)


Facts

Jarosz (plaintiff) hired Palmer (defendant), an attorney, to help him and his business partners acquire a company called Union Products. After they acquired Union Products, Jarosz and the partners had a falling out. The partners fired Jarosz. Jarosz sued the partners and Union Products for wrongful termination and breach of fiduciary duty. Palmer was the attorney for the partners and Union Products in this suit (the Union Products case). Jarosz moved to disqualify Palmer based on conflict of interest because Palmer had represented Jarosz when he and the partners acquired Union Products. The judge denied Jarosz’s motion and found that Jarosz did not show an attorney-client relationship existed between him and Palmer during the acquisition. After filing suit against the partners, Jarosz also sued Palmer for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and malpractice. Palmer denied that an attorney-client relationship existed between him and Jarosz. He filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the judge’s finding in the Union Products case that no attorney-client relationship between him and Jarosz was proven precluded Jarosz from relitigating this issue. The judge found that issue preclusion applied and granted Palmer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Jarosz appealed. The appellate court found that issue preclusion did not bar Jarosz’s claim against Palmer because the issue of whether an attorney-client relationship existed between Jarosz and Palmer was not essential in the earlier suit. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Cowin, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 129,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 177 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.