Civil Practice – Interlocutory Appeal – Attorneys – Ordinary Negligence Claim

There was no attorney-client relationship between the defendant-lawyer and the plaintiff-lender, but plaintiff’s claim against the lawyer – that he had notice that a satisfaction document was potentially fraudulent but nevertheless recorded the fraudulent satisfaction – is a claim of common law negligence, not professional malpractice. We reject defendants’ argument that they are exempt/immune from a negligence claim. Defendants have not shown that a substantial right will be affected in the absence of an immediate appeal of the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

Medport, Inc. v. Hazlehurst (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-231-22, 6 pp.) (Fred Gore, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court (Lisa Bell, J.) Zipporah Basile Edwards and Robert McNeill for defendants; John Buric, John Brickley and Preston Odom for plaintiff. 2022-NCCOA-360