$350K Verdict in Pollard v. Sodipo Legal Malpractice Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
Michelle Pollard, a Hartford, Connecticut resident, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against her former attorney John Sodipo and his law firm, Sodipo Law Group, P.C. The case originated from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 17, 2012, when Pollard was rear-ended while driving. She sustained various injuries from the collision and subsequently hired Sodipo to represent her in pursuing compensation for her injuries, including underinsured motorist benefits through her insurance carrier, GEICO.
Cause
Pollard alleged that Sodipo, who held himself out as an attorney with special knowledge and experience in personal injury law, failed to properly handle her case during his representation from 2012 through at least September 26, 2022. According to the complaint, Sodipo successfully exhausted the insurance limits of the at-fault driver on or about June 9, 2016. However, he allegedly failed to bring a timely action for underinsured motorist benefits against GEICO on Pollard's behalf and failed to place GEICO on proper notice of her underinsured motorist claim.
Injury
Pollard suffered various physical injuries from the 2012 rear-end collision. Due to the alleged legal malpractice, she claimed she was completely unable to seek underinsured motorist benefits under her insurance policy for her injuries and losses related to the September 17, 2012 motor vehicle accident. She also claimed she lost the investment value of the fair compensation that was owed to her for her accident-related injuries.
Damages Sought
Pollard's complaint stated that the amount in demand was in excess of fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of costs and interest. She sought compensatory damages, taxable costs, and such other relief deemed fair, just, and reasonable by the Court.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Michelle Pollard
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Brennen Maki
· Experts for Plaintiff: Daniel Algilani | David Lake | Patrick Senatus
Defendants: John Sodipo, Esq. | Sodipo Law Group, P.C.
· Counsel for Defendants: John A. Sodipo
· Experts for Defendants: James F. Sullivan
Claims
The complaint contained two counts of legal malpractice against the Defendants.
Failure to Prosecute with Reasonable Diligence: Pollard alleged that Sodipo failed to prosecute her personal injury claim with reasonable diligence, causing her to lose her opportunity to recover underinsured motorist benefits.
Missed Statute of Limitations: Pollard claimed that Sodipo failed to ensure a lawsuit was filed on her behalf against her insurance company for underinsured motorist benefits within the applicable statute of limitations.
Failure to Provide Proper Notice: The complaint alleged that Sodipo failed to place Pollard's insurance carrier on proper notice of her underinsured motorist claim, which was essential to preserve her right to benefits.
Failure to Communicate: Pollard alleged that Sodipo failed to inform, warn, or otherwise advise her that he would not be advancing or protecting her interests in the case.
Discovery Failures: The complaint stated that Sodipo failed to properly respond to discovery propounded on him in Pollard's case, resulting in a disciplinary dismissal.
Defense
The Defendants filed an answer and raised several special defenses in response to Pollard's complaint.
Statute of Limitations Defense: John Sodipo asserted that Pollard's claims against him were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Contributory Fault and Setoff: Sodipo argued that to the extent Pollard suffered any damages, her own conduct in forfeiting other causes of action against her insurer was the cause of her damages.
No Attorney-Client Relationship with Law Firm: Sodipo Law Group, P.C. claimed that no attorney-client relationship existed between the law firm and Pollard during the periods of the claimed misconduct, and therefore the firm was not liable to Pollard for any damages.
No Successor Liability: Sodipo Law Group, P.C. asserted that it was not a successor in interest to Jacobs and Sodipo, LLC, and therefore was not liable for any misconduct during the relevant periods. The Defendants denied all allegations of negligence and malpractice in their answer.
Jury Verdict
The jury delivered its verdict on November 14, 2025, in the Hartford Superior Court before the Honorable Robert E. Young. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff Michelle Pollard and against Defendants John Sodipo and Sodipo Law Group, P.C.
The jury awarded Pollard economic damages in the amount of $350,000. The jury foreperson, Joseph K. Baker, signed the verdict form confirming the jury's unanimous decision.
The verdict represented a significant recovery for Pollard, who alleged she was completely barred from pursuing underinsured motorist benefits due to her former attorney's negligence. The jury's award reflected the economic losses Pollard claimed she suffered as a direct result of Sodipo's failure to properly handle her personal injury claim over the course of approximately ten years of representation.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of attorneys meeting their professional obligations to clients, including timely filing of claims, proper notice to insurance carriers, and adequate communication with clients about the status of their cases. The substantial verdict demonstrates that juries take seriously the duty attorneys owe to their clients and the significant harm that can result when those duties are breached.