Article by Aaliyah Hyacinthe, Esq.
On July 13, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted an allowance of appeal in the matter Antoine Poteat v. Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari, 23 MAL 2026, to consider (1) whether the Gist-of-the-Action Doctrine prohibits a plaintiff from recasting a negligence claim as a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff does not allege a specific term of the contract has been breached; and (2) whether an implied duty to represent a client in a manner that comports with professional standards exists in all written agreements to perform legal services, and whether that duty alone satisfies the duty element of claim for breach of contract.
The case arises out of a retainer agreement entered into by the parties for Appellees to provide legal services to Mr. Poteat in a criminal matter. Mr. Poteat filed a complaint against the Appellees alleging that the Appellees breached the retainer agreement by failing to provide competent legal services. Appellees filed preliminary objections, arguing that Mr. Poteat’s breach of contract claim was legally insufficient and sounded more in tort, citing the Gist-of-the-Action Doctrine. Mr. Poteat argued that he did not have to assert a breach of a specific contractual term, and that general assertions of a breach of duty were sufficient. The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and recast Mr. Poteat’s claim as a tort claim, which was barred by the statute of limitations. Mr. Poteat appealed to the Superior Court.
On December 11, 2025, the Superior Court issued its opinion, finding that the Gist-of-the-Action Doctrine did not apply to the case because Mr. Poteat pled a breach of contract claim when he alleged that the Appellees breached the retainer agreement by failing to provide competent legal services. The Superior Court relied on Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 621 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1993) and Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2002), which support the public policy that attorneys undertake a contractual duty to provide competent legal services when they enter into a contract to provide legal services, and that clients have the right to enforce that duty, even if the explicit language is not included in the agreement. The Superior Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 630 Pa. 79, 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), finding that it does not address the enforceability of an implied contractual provision requiring a lawyer to provide competent legal services. Thus, the Superior Court held that the implied duty of a retained attorney to represent a client in a manner that comports with the professional standards of the legal profession may satisfy the duty element of a claim for breach of contract for legal services.
The Supreme Court granted an allowance of appeal to consider whether the Superior Court’s holding conflicts with its holding in Bruno and controlling precedent distinguishing between contract and tort claims based on the nature of the duty that was allegedly breached. This case touches on a key issue in legal malpractice cases, as a two-year statute of limitations applies to claims for personal injury, whereas a four-year statute of limitations applies to claims for breach of contract. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the extent to which a lawyer can be sued for a breach of contract action, as the Gist-of-the-Action Doctrine is a defense that can bar such claims. It will also determine whether plaintiffs can use a breach of contract claim to extend the statute of limitations on a claim that otherwise would have been barred if it had been brought as a tort claim. The case has not yet been scheduled for argument.