A Florida court has dismissed a legal malpractice case brought by Dario and Flavia Carnevale against several law firms. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled on August 19, 2026, that the Carnevales did not have the legal standing to pursue their claims. This decision affects not only the Carnevales but also sets a precedent regarding the assignability of legal malpractice claims in Florida.
The Carnevales had previously obtained large money judgments against former clients of the law firms involved in the case. However, those clients filed for bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy trustees chose not to pursue potential legal malpractice claims against the law firms. Instead, the trustees assigned those claims to the Carnevales “AS IS, WHERE IS and WITH ALL FAULTS, if any.” This meant that the Carnevales received no guarantees about the validity of the claims or their ability to pursue them in court.
The Carnevales then filed a legal malpractice action against the law firms, which included Krinzman Huss & Lubetsky, LLP, and several other attorneys. However, the trial court dismissed their case, stating that under Florida law, legal malpractice claims are generally non-assignable. The court emphasized that the Carnevales, as litigation adversaries of the original clients, could not pursue these claims.
The court's ruling highlighted Florida's long-standing policy against the assignment of legal malpractice claims. In its opinion, the court stated, "The liability of attorneys for negligence in the performance of their professional duties is limited to clients with whom they share privity of contract.” This means that only clients who have a direct relationship with their attorneys can hold them accountable for malpractice.
The court also noted that allowing such claims to be assigned could undermine the attorney-client relationship, which relies on confidentiality and trust. The court referenced previous cases that established the importance of protecting these relationships, stating, “The two major policy concerns justifying a general prohibition against the assignment of legal malpractice claims are (1) protecting attorney-client confidences and (2) preventing a market for legal malpractice claims.”
The Carnevales argued that the bankruptcy court's approval of the assignment gave them standing to pursue the claims. However, the Third District Court of Appeal found no merit in this argument. The court concluded that the Carnevales did not have the necessary standing to bring the legal malpractice action against the law firms.
The ruling is significant as it reaffirms the principle that legal malpractice claims cannot be assigned to third parties in Florida. This decision could impact future cases involving similar circumstances, particularly in bankruptcy situations where claims may be transferred. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of the attorney-client relationship and the limitations placed on legal malpractice claims.
Going forward, this ruling may discourage individuals from attempting to pursue legal malpractice claims through assignments, especially when they are not direct clients of the attorneys involved. It reinforces the idea that only those who have a direct contractual relationship with their attorneys can seek recourse for legal malpractice.
As for the Carnevales, they may consider their options for appealing this decision, although details about any potential appeal were not provided in the court filing. The ruling stands as a definitive statement on the assignability of legal malpractice claims in Florida.