J-S61002-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN J. LYNCH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
BENJAMIN COOPER, ESQ., ALLAN
SAGOT, ESQ., AND ALLAN SAGOT
ASSOCIATES,
Appellees No. 1657 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): May Term, 2018, No. 01228
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2018
Appellant, John J. Lynch, appeals pro se from the trial court’s order
dismissing his complaint for failure to allege necessary elements of his legal
malpractice cause of action. Due to substantial defects in Appellant’s brief,
we dismiss his appeal.
We need not discuss the facts underlying Appellant’s appeal. Instead,
we observe that,
appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform
to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the
appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is
willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro
se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal
J-S61002-18
proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted).
In the case sub judice, Appellant’s brief is missing several required
sections under Pa.R.A.P. 2111, namely the order in question, a statement of
the question(s) involved, and a summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(2), (4), (6). Further, Appellant’s argument section does not comply
with Rule 2119(a), which states that “[t]he argument section shall be divided
into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the
head of each part … the particular point treated therein, followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a). Instead, Appellant’s argument consists of enumerated paragraphs
that largely reiterate the factual allegations underlying the case. See
Appellant’s Brief at 7-9. Although Appellant cites to a few cases in his
argument, he fails to provide any coherent analysis connecting them to his
case and he does not clearly explain how they help establish his legal
malpractice claim. See, e.g., id. at 13 (citing to a case to support that a
possible criminal remedy does not preclude a litigant from seeking a civil
remedy). Other times, Appellant proffers no legal authority to support certain
assertions. See id. at 7 (arguing that his complaint “does not meet the criteria
for dismissal pursuant to the rule”). As a result, we view Appellant’s
arguments as undeveloped, conclusory, and confusing.
-2-
J-S61002-18
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the defects in Appellant’s
brief are substantial and preclude any meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/20/18
-3-