Clark v. Rowe

Jean Clark (plaintiff), a real estate investor, lost money on an investment and sued her attorney, Harvey Rowe (defendant), and her banker for malpractice. A jury found Rowe negligent in a loan refinance and that his negligence substantially contributed to Clark's losses, but also found Clark 70 percent at fault and Rowe only 30 percent at fault. Applying comparative fault, the trial judge entered judgment for Rowe. Clark appealed, arguing comparative fault doesn't apply to legal-malpractice claims.