Mitzel v. Vogel Law Firm

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of Alan and Eric Mitzel’s malpractice claims because they were not clients of the law firm and therefore lacked standing to sue for the firm’s representation of their mother. It also upheld the damages measure used for Sharon Mitzel’s claim and agreed she presented no evidence that she surrendered marital property to obtain the promise concerning Section 19. The court reversed the judgment as to corrective attorney fees and costs because the billing records supplied a sufficient factual basis for a jury to determine whether some fees were caused by the alleged malpractice.