Gatto v. Panitz
Plaintiff Thomas D. Gatto, the former client of defendant attorneys Philip G. Panitz and Ryan D. Schaap, and the law firm of Panitz Schaap,[1]brought this action for legal malpractice, alleging that they gave him negligent advice with regard to the appropriate time to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in order to have Gattos tax debts discharged in bankruptcy. Panitz Schaap successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the scope of their representation was explicitly limited to negotiating an offer in compromise of the tax debts with the taxing agencies, and did not include filing the bankruptcy petition.[2] We conclude that Gatto failed to demonstrate that Panitz Schaap owed him a duty with regard to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, and also cannot demonstrate that any conduct by Panitz Schaap was the legal cause of his alleged injury. Court therefore affirm the trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Panitz Schaap.
Comments on Gatto v. Panitz