This legal malpractice action arises from an estate administration dispute between Suder and her son. Suder's husband passed away in 1997 leaving a will which named Suder as his personal representative. Acting pro se, Suder filed for an extension to the deadline by which she would elect her statutory share of the estate. On June 9, 1998, six days after that deadline, the Court granted Suder's petition. Following one more petition for an extension, Suder retained representation from a Law Firm in November 1998. Several other petitions for extensions were filed and granted until Suder filed for the fifth petition for an extension through her counsel. This petition was filed untimely and accordingly denied.

The malpractice action ensued in which Suder alleged that the Law Firm's failure to file the fifth petition for an extension before the election period had expired resulted in loss of her right to disclaim her husband's estate and elect a statutory share. The Law Firm argued that the untimely filing was not the proximate cause of her alleged injuries, but that she lost the right to elect her statutory share of the estate on her first pro se request for an extension when it was not granted by the orphans' court until after the expiration of the election period. The Law Firm filed a Motion to Dismiss the malpractice case while Suder filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Circuit Court for Talbot County denied Whiteford's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Suder.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari to determine whether the trial-within-a-trial doctrine was applicable in this case. The issue was whether the Court could utilize the trial-within-a-trial doctrine to determine whether another legatee could challenge Suder's election of statutory share based on the validity of the first granted extension.

The trial-within-a-trial doctrine is a means of resolving issues involved in underlying proceedings of a legal malpractice action and is used where there is no bright line malpractice. The purpose is to expose a result that should have been or what the result would have been had the lawyer's negligence not occurred.

Suder argued that this trial-within-a-trial doctrine cannot be utilized here because the case was actually litigated and history tells us that the legatee challenged the fifth request for an extension rather than the first request for an extension. After a review of Maryland case law and case law from our sister states, the Court determined that there was nothing to limit the doctrine to situations where there had not been a trial. Accordingly, the trial-within-a-trial doctrine can be applied after the completion of a trial in an underlying case. Thus, the question is whether the legatee would have challenged the validity of the first extension had the Law Firm timely filed the fifth request for an extension.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Talbot County for a trial on the merits consistent with this opinion.