- 27 -
Issue 1. Whether Portions of the $750,000 Settlement for Claims
Against Eckell, Sparks Are Attributable to the Value of
the Estate’s Claim for the Return of Attorney’s Fees That
the Orphans’ Court Ordered Returned to Decedent’s Estate
and/or Attributable to the Value of the Glovers’ Claims
Against the Firm
The administrators pro tem. and the Glovers filed a civil
action against Eckell, Sparks, alleging that Eckell, Sparks (1)
committed malpractice in connection with the drafting of decedent’s
will and antenuptial agreement (count I), as well as while
representing decedent’s estate (count III); (2) was liable for the
attorney’s fees incurred by the Glovers in contesting decedent’s
will (count II); (3) violated the RICO (count IV); and (4) was
liable for punitive damages (count V). The lower court dismissed
all counts either for lack of standing or for failure to allege
sufficient facts to support these claims. On appeal, the superior
court reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of the
predeath malpractice claim against Eckell, Sparks by the
administrators pro tem. The superior court affirmed the order of
the lower court in all other respects.
On April 17, 2000, the Orphans’ Court, sua sponte, entered an
opinion and decree ordering Eckell, Sparks to repay the $247,500
the law firm had received from decedent’s estate. The trial of the
civil action brought by the administrators pro tem. against Eckell,
Sparks commenced in April 2000. In early May 2000 the
administrators pro tem., the Glovers, and Eckell, Sparks entered
into a settlement whereby Eckell, Sparks agreed to pay $750,000 for
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011