M.N. Mansour v. Spolin, Silverman et al.
This appeal involves a claim of transactional malpractice against a law firm, Spolin, Silverman, Cohen and Bosserman, LLP, and two of its lawyers, Scott Spolin and Stephen Silverman (collectively, Spolin). Their former client, M.N. Mansour, Inc. (Mansour), and its principal, M.N. Mansour, allege that Spolin committed malpractice when it failed to include a provision in an asset purchase agreement requiring the buyer to continue to pay Mansour if the assets it purchased from Mansour were sold to another company.
Spolin moved for summary judgment on the malpractice claim, asserting that the buyer would not have agreed to the provision appellants now assert was negligently omitted from the purchase agreement. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action.
We affirm. Appellants did not present evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether they would have received a “better deal†if the omission had not occurred. Without this evidence, appellants could not establish “but for†causation, and the legal malpractice claim fails.
Comments on M.N. Mansour v. Spolin, Silverman et al.