Attorneys-Legal Malpractice-Motion to Strike

Staff Report//April 8, 2026//

Listen to this article

Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim, challenging the grant of defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ statement of uncontroverted facts and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to stay the summary judgment proceedings.

Where plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ statement of uncontroverted facts violated Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.04(c)(2) for various reasons, including stating facts beyond those included in defendants’ statement and setting forth inadmissible evidence, the trial court did not err in deeming those portions of defendants’ statement admitted, which were sufficient to negate the causal element of plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Turubchuk v. Boock (MLW No. 84593/Case No. ED113473 – 21 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Clayton, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Hilton, J. (Laurence D. Mass for appellants) (Richard C. Wuestling IV and Susan M. Dimond for respondents)