From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Wood v. McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C.
Nebraska Supreme Court
589 N.W.2d 103 (1999)
Timothy Pugh, an attorney with McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C. (McGrath) (defendant), represented Beverly Wood (plaintiff) in her divorce settlement. When Pugh presented the proposed settlement terms, he did not inform Wood the law was unsettled about (1) whether unvested stock options could be included in the marital estate, and (2) whether unvested stock options were valued with or without first deducting possible capital-gains taxes. The proposed settlement terms excluded Wood’s husband’s unvested stock options from the marital estate. Pugh did not discuss alternative settlement terms and did not discuss the potential outcomes at trial. Wood signed the settlement agreement. Subsequently, Wood brought a legal-malpractice suit against McGrath, claiming Pugh negligently represented her because Pugh failed to inform her about the unsettled law regarding unvested stock options. Wood testified she would not have signed the settlement agreement had she known about the unsettled law and her associated range of potential outcomes at trial. At trial in the malpractice action, the trial court granted McGrath’s motion for a directed verdict. Wood appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding the judgmental-immunity doctrine applied to shield Pugh from liability for his omissions related to the unsettled areas of law, and that Pugh was not required to advise Wood about unsettled law related to the settlement. Wood appealed, arguing the doctrine of judgmental immunity should not apply and that Pugh had a duty to inform her there was unsettled law relevant to the terms of the settlement proposal, especially because the settlement terms as written resolved the unsettled law against her and a trial judge could have ruled to the contrary in her favor.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Connolly, 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 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead 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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.