Boston Legal Malpractice Lawyer

A Louisiana appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice suit. In Guy v. Brown, two half-sisters brought a legal malpractice claim against their former attorney who represented them in their deceased father’s succession proceedings. The father had received negligent medical care, which resulted in paraplegia and allegedly contributed to his death eight years later. The sisters believed they were hiring the attorney to represent them in the succession proceedings, and also to bring a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against the hospital where he was treated.

However, the attorney claimed to be unaware of the medical malpractice claim, and therefore did not file any action. Upon learning of the sisters’ allegation that he had been hired to file a malpractice claim, the attorney withdrew as counsel due to a potential conflict of interest. The sisters then filed a legal malpractice suit against him. The attorney filed an exception to the complaint, alleging no cause of action, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The sisters appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. It relied on a Louisiana statute, which prescribes that all claims for injury or death against a medical care provider must be brought within one year from the date of the act or discovery of the claim, and in no event later than three years from the date of the act. Since the sisters had not hired the attorney until their father’s death, which was eight years after he had received the alleged improper medical care, the attorney could not be held liable for failing to timely file an action.

Decision: Guy v. Brown

Continue reading

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has modified the dismissal of a legal malpractice action to be “without prejudice” rather than “with prejudice”. In Bryner v. Lindberg a client brought a case in a Utah state court, alleging federal claims against several defendants as well as a legal malpractice claim against his former attorney under Utah state law. Defendants removed the case to U.S. District Court, which dismissed the federal claims under the Younger abstention doctrine, which is a challenged to subject matter jurisdiction.

In the absence of any federal issues, the state court malpractice claim was also subject to dismissal. The attorney asked the magistrate to dismiss with prejudice and the client sought dismissal without prejudice, to permit re-filing of the claims in state court. The magistrate ordered the case dismissed with prejudice, articulating that the client had failed to state a claim for malpractice under Utah law. However, the magistrate’s final order dismissed the case with prejudice, simply declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state malpractice claim. The client appealed.

The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions that the case be dismissed without prejudice. It reasoned that a dismissal under the Younger doctrine is jurisdictional. If a district court dismisses all federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, then it must dismiss the remaining state claims as well. In the absence of any jurisdiction to hear a claim, a court may not dismiss a claim with prejudice, which goes to the merits. The magistrate erred when he dismissed the case with prejudice.

Decision: Bryner v. Lindberg

Continue reading

A Texas appeals court has affirmed a summary judgment granted for an attorney in a legal malpractice action because the client failed to meet the required standard of proof in the case as to causation and damages. In Orcutt v. Goldberg, a client sued her former attorney for malpractice resulting from the attorney’s failure to give her former husband proper service and provide him with notice of a hearing for temporary orders during their divorce proceedings. The client’s former husband failed to attend the hearing and the court entered temporary support orders by default.

The former husband then moved to vacate the temporary orders due to lack of notice. A hearing took place on the husband’s motion, but there was no indication in the record whether or not the court vacated the prior Order. The court then issued a final divorced decree, without mention of the temporary Orders.

The client then sued her attorney, arguing that the attorney’s omissions either resulted in the temporary orders to have been vacated by the Court or void as a matter of law.. In either case, the result precluded them from being incorporated in the divorce decree.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney and the client appealed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the attorney, finding that the client could not prove that the attorney’s conduct caused the client’s alleged damages. The Court reviewed the lower court record, which did not indicate that the temporary orders had been vacated or that the temporary orders had any effect on the final divorce decree.

Decision: Orcutt v. Goldberg

Continue reading

A Florida appeals court has affirmed a summary judgment granted for an attorney on the basis that the Florida two year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims had expired prior to the filing of the complaint. In McLeod v. Bankier, a client sued an attorney for failing to timely advise his client to file a legal malpractice claim against another former attorney. The first attorney had represented the client in an action against an investment bank, which allegedly made an improper margin call on his securities account.

Although the underlying case eventually settled, the client believed that the settlement agreement required his investment bank to restore his account to its former status. When the funds were not returned, the client hired a new attorney to pursue a claim against the investment bank through the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”). In 2003, the NASD’s arbitration panel ruled in favor of the investment bank. In 2004, the second attorney ended his representation of the client but referred him to a third lawyer to pursue a legal malpractice claim against the first attorney.

The third lawyer advised the client that he did not have a legal malpractice claim against the first attorney. The client then hired another attorney to pursue an appeal of the NASD ruling. This fourth attorney advised the client to file a legal malpractice action against the first attorney rather than pursue the appeal. The client took no action against any of his former attorneys until 2008 when he filed a malpractice complaint against the second lawyer.

Continue reading

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a legal malpractice action, while granting leave to file a second amended complaint. In Mengle v. Goldsmith, a real estate investor brought an action against an attorney who represented the non-party real estate developer. The Chicago law firm drafted documents and performed legal services, assisting the developer to raise $11 million from investors in order to acquire and sell six Florida properties.

The venture failed, resulting in foreclosure or losses on sale of the properties. The investor then filed an action against the developer’s law firm, alleging that it had negligently prepared documents, which caused him losses and that he was an intended third party beneficiary of the law firm’s services.

The law firm moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Personal jurisdiction arises either through general or specific jurisdiction. The federal court found no general jurisdiction because the law firm had not engaged in substantial and non-isolated activities within Florida that showed “a general course of business activity in the [s]tate for pecuniary benefit.” The court relied on the fact that all of the firm’s services were performed in Chicago and an attorney for the firm had attended a single meeting in Florida.

Continue reading

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a legal malpractice case, which had been dismissed below based on a statute of limitations bar. In Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, a client sued a law firm, which represented him and a company jointly owned with his wife and had prepared patent and licensing documents granting the company exclusive rights to sell a computer firewall technology he had invented.

Seven years later the client and his wife divorced, which resulted in the client losing one half of his rights in the patent. The client sued the law firm in Missouri Federal Court, claiming that the firm had negligently prepared the agreements, which resulted in the loss of his rights.

The firm moved to dismiss claiming the action was barred by Missouri’s five year statute of limitationsi. The District Court below granted the motion, finding that the client’s damages were ascertainable when he first signed the license agreement. The client appealed.

The Eighth Circuit ruled that the client could not have discovered his injuries prior to the divorce because the law firm had advised him, at the time of signing, that his interest would not be harmed in a divorce. The Court also found that nothing outside of the existing attorney-client relationship could have put him on notice that the agreements as drafted would cause him harm. Thus, the statute began to run only when the injury occurred and the action was not barred. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision: Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP

Continue reading

A California Appeals Court has affirmed a lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a legal malpractice action. In Augusta v. Keehn & Associates, a client moved to compel arbitration six and one half months after filing a complaint against his former attorney.

The client had filed an opposition to the attorney’s demurral to the first amended complaint served discovery papers, noticed the attorney’s deposition and filed two motions to compel discovery. Although the deposition was cancelled, the attorney did finally respond to discovery requests.

The client then filed a motion to compel arbitration. The attorney opposed the motion, claiming that the client had waived his right to arbitrate due to his previous inconsistent court actions and undue delay in seeking arbitration. The lower l court denied the motion and the client appealed.

The appeals court agreed, finding that the client’s delay was unreasonable, given that he was aware of the arbitration provision at the time the complaint was filed Further, the client’s court actions indicated that there was no initial intent to arbitrate, but rather an indication that the client intended to litigate in the courts The court also found that prejudice would have resulted if arbitration were permitted since the attorney had divulged certain trial theories in his discovery responses.

Decision: Augusta v. Keehn & Associates

Continue reading