This case alleges malpractice. It is unusual because the defendants moved for a stay of the case. A stay stops the proceedings dead in their tracks. The defendants filed this motion because the alleged malpractice arose out of estate planning and the plaintiff was a party to other lawsuits (with family members and other heirs) involving that estate planning. The Court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the motion for a stay of proceedings.
The Appellate Court held that the trial court properly denied the motion for stay of proceedings.
Generally, a stay would benefit the defendant because the case does not move forward. However, stays are bad for the legal system because they prevent cases from being resolved.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.