Louisiana Legislature adopts provision that affects a plaintiff's ability to recover in a legal malpractice action

 As reported in Louisiana Legal Ethics, last year, the Louisiana Legislature enacted La. Rev. Stat. 9:5605.2, which provides that "[i]n any action for damages by a client against an attorney, the client’s recovery against the attorney shall be limited to the amount of damages which the attorney shows by a preponderance of the evidence would have been the maximum amount of damages that the client could have collected in the client’s underlying action in which he was represented by the attorney."

The statute is unusual in that it switches the burden of proof to the defendant to prove the amount of the recoverable damages.  This should not be the case.  The burden should remain on the plaintiff.

The statute is a response to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Ewing v. Westport Insurance Corporation, 315 So. 3d 175 (La. 2020) in which the court held that “proof of collectibility of an underlying judgment is not an element necessary for a plaintiff to establish a claim for legal malpractice, nor can collectibility be asserted by an attorney as an affirmative defense in a legal malpractice action.”  

Louisiana Supreme Court holds that plaintiffs do not need to show that they would have been able to collect the judgment in the "case within the case" to support malpractice claim

As you know, when a plaintiff sues a lawyer for malpractice in a litigation matter alleging that the defendant's representation caused the plaintiff to lose a claim, the plaintiff has to show that they would have won the case had it not been for the negligence of the defendant (the lawyer).  In torts terms, this is what the plaintiff has to argue and prove in order to establish the element of cause in fact.  Typically, however, courts hold that showing that the plaintiff would have won the original case (sometimes referred to as "the case within the case") is not enough because if the plaintiff would not have been able to recover anything in that case then the plaintiff can't establish an actual "loss" (the element of injury, in torts terms).

This means that typically, the plaintiff has to show not only that the plaintiff would have won the original case but for the negligence of the lawyer, but also that the plaintiff would have been able to collect the judgment (or at least part of it) as a result.

I am writing about this today because the Legal Profession blog reported a few days ago that the Louisiana Supreme Court recently decided a case that appears to be the first time a court has held that the plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit need not prove that the underlying lost judgment was collectible.

The case is called Ewing v. Westport Insurance and you can read it here. 

Missouri Supreme Court finds that public defenders have immunity for discretionary functions

In a case called Laughlin v. Perry, decided on June 30, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court found that public defenders are immune for legal malpractice liability under the doctrine of discretionary functions.   You can read the opinion here.   The court summarized its conclusion as follows:

As public defenders, Perry and Flottman are entitled to official immunity because they are public employees whose official statutory duties concern the performance of discretionary acts. . . . One need not be a public official engaged in the essence of governing to be entitled to official immunity; such immunity extends to protect public employees from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of performing discretionary acts requiring exercise of a degree of reason and judgment. There is no dispute Perry and Flottman were acting pursuant to their constitutionally and statutorily mandated duties in representing Laughlin, and . . .  choosing which defenses to raise and which arguments to pursue on appeal on behalf of indigent clients constitutes a discretionary act entitled to official immunity.

Wisconsin reaffirms that criminal defendants must show actual innocence to support malpractice claim against former defense counsel

Long time readers of this blog may remember that I have posted many stories commenting on the fact that many (probably most) jurisdictions require former criminal defendants to prove actual innocence as a requirement to support malpractice claims against their criminal defense counsel.  In recent years, a number of jurisdictions have rejected this notion, but it still seems to be the majority approach.

I am writing about this again today to report that earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reaffirmed its position on this in a case called Skindzelewski v. Smith, which you can read here.

Texas Supreme Court reiterates that former criminal defendants suing their lawyers for negligence must prove actual innocence

Long time readers of this blog may remember that I have posted many stories commenting on the fact that many (probably most) jurisdictions require former criminal defendants to prove actual innocence as a requirement to support malpractice claims against their criminal defense counsel. (Go here and scroll down for stories on this.)  In recent years, a number of jurisdictions have rejected this notion, but it still seems to be the majority approach.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed its position on this in a case called Gray v. Skelton, which you can read here.

What makes this case interesting is that it clarifies that merely getting a conviction reversed, or being "exonerated" is not, by itself, enough to show actual innocence.  As the court explains, 

...exoneration . . . requires not only that the underlying criminal conviction be vacated but also proof of innocence. Innocence, however, can be established in more than one way. It can be established in the underlying criminal proceeding when the conviction is vacated on an actual-innocence finding. . . .Or, if the conviction is vacated on other grounds, formerly convicted individuals may prove their innocence in their malpractice suit against their criminal-defense attorneys. 

Does a plaintiff always need an expert in a malpractice case?

Because the practice of law is considered to be a profession, and a profession is defined, among other things by the fact that it requires special knowledge, education and training, courts usually require that plaintiffs in malpractice actions provide an expert witness to support their arguments as to duty and breach to the jury.  But what if there is no jury?  What if the case is going to be a bench trial?  Should a plaintiff be required to have an expert to explain to the judge what the standard of care of the profession is?  Or can we assume that the judge - obviously a lawyer himself or herself - knows the law that applies to the practice of the profession they belong to?

In a recent case in Delaware (Cannon v. Poliquin), the court decide no help from an expert is needed.  Go here for a short summary.

ABA Journal article on malpractice claims against former criminal defense lawyers

As you probably know, jurisdictions are divided on whether a convicted criminal defendant has to argue and prove actual innocence as a requirement to maintain a legal malpractice action against his or her former lawyer.  In the past few years, I have reported that Utah, Iowa, (also here), Indiana, Idaho, and Kansas (here and here) have abandoned the requirement of showing actual innocence.

I am writing about this today because I just saw that the most recent issue of the ABA Journal has a short article on the debate on this issue.

You can access the article here.  Legal Ethics in Motion has a comment here.

Should a public defender be protected by a state torts immunity act?

Just a few days ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that should be called Chaparro Nieves v. Office of the Public Defender (but is being mistakenly identified as Nieves v. Office of the Public Defender)** in which the Court has been asked to decide whether the Office of the Public Defender should be covered by the state's Torts Claims Act.

In this case, the plaintiff had been incarcerated for twelve years on serious charges, including first-degree aggravated sexual assault, when the charges against him were dismissed on his petition for post-conviction relief.  At some point thereafter, he filed a legal malpractice complaint against the public defender's office and an individual lawyer.  The trial judge denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the legal malpractice claim but the Appellate Division reversed, holding, among other things, that it is clear that the office of the public defender is a public entity and public defenders are public employees that come within the Tort Claims Act’s immunities and defenses.  You can read that opinion here.

The case is now before the Supreme Court where Professor George W. Conk, of the Louis Stein Center for Law & Ethics at Fordham University School of Law, argued on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association urging the Court to affirm the Appellate Division’s decision to apply the TCA to the legal malpractice claims.  The Bar Association's statement concludes that "[c]ompetent criminal defense lawyers should not be deterred from public service by the prospect of ruinous awards and defense costs. Without the defense and indemnification assured by the Tort Claims Act the interests of both PDs and those with just claims against them are ill served."

You can read the full statement of the Bar Association here.


** I say the case "should be called" that because I have seen it referred to everywhere as just Nieves v.  Office of the Public Defender, which shows ignorance about the use of two last names in the Latin American tradition.  The plaintiff's name is Antonio Chaparro, not Antonio Nieves.  But that is just a pet peeve of mine and I will leave it at that.

Utah holds criminal defendant does not have to show actual innocence to support malpractice claim against lawyer

As you probably know, jurisdiction are divided on the issue of whether a convicted criminal defendant should be required to show actual innocence as a requirement to support a malpractice claim against his or her former criminal defense lawyer.

I recently wrote that Mississippi and Kentucky adopted an exoneration requirement, while Iowa and Idaho rejected it.  (For more stories on the issue, go here and scroll down.)

Today I am writing about this because I just read that the Utah Supreme Court has affirmed and clarified its holding that a criminal defendant can sue counsel for malpractice without proving actual innocence in a case called Paxman v King, available here.

The Legal Profession Blog has more details here.

Washington State Bar Association rejects proposal to require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance

Not long after the State Bar of California’s board decided against requiring lawyers to carry malpractice insurance, the Washington State Bar Association’s board has rejected a similar recommendation.  Oregon and Idaho remain the only two states with a malpractice requirement for attorneys.

The task force that studied the issue in Washington had concluded that the lack of an insurance requirement “poses a distinct risk to clients.”  Yet, the Board voted down the proposal.

One of the reasons behind the decision was the concern that a malpractice insurance requirement would hurt access to justice because lawyers would be required to raise their fees to cover the cost of insurance. 

Above the Law has more on the story here.

Advice for when you realize you made a huge mistake and will likely get sued...

I often tell my torts students that forgetting to file a claim before the statute of limitations runs is possible the dumbest mistake they can make.  "Buy, and more importantly, learn to use a calendar!",  I tell them.

So what happens if the do make that dumb mistake? What happens next?   Here is some good advice.

New Jersey Supreme Court rejects mandatory malpractice insurance, embraces disclosure of coverage

George Conk, of Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach, is reporting that the New Jersey Supreme Court has issued a "Notice to the Bar" adopting only some of the  recommendations of its Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Malpractice Insurance.  Among its conclusions, it rejects the notion that all private practitioners should be obligated to have malpractice insurance. However, the court decided to retain a rule that all limited liability firms must carry insurance. Also, the Court announced that it will revisit at an unspecified date whether attorneys who lack coverage should be required to disclose that fact.

Mississippi and Kentucky adopt exoneration requirement for malpractice claims against criminal defense attorneys

Some jurisdictions have recently abandoned the view that a convicted criminal defendant who wants to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer has to prove that he or she was actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  My most recent post on this is here.   Some of those, however, still require that the plaintiffs show they were exonerated through the criminal process (or what some call "post conviction relief").  In other words, in cases in which a convicted defendant wants to sue a former lawyer alleging they would not have been convicted but for the negligence of the lawyer there are three approaches:  requiring that the defendant show actual innocence, requiring that the defendant show post conviction relief (but not necessarily innocence) and not requiring anything other than the typical elements of a torts claim.

In two recent decisions, the Supreme Courts of Mississippi and Kentucky have decided to adopt the approach that requires "exoneration" for the malpractice claim to proceed.

The case in Mississippi is called Trigg v. Farese, and you can read the opinion here.  In it, the court concludes that "We join the substantial majority of courts in holding that, because these allegations would entitle the plaintiff to relief from his underlying conviction, he must first pursue them through the criminal-justice process. In other words, a convict must “exonerate” himself by obtaining relief from his conviction or sentence before he may pursue a claim against his defense attorney for causing him to be convicted or sentenced more harshly than he should have been. To the extent prior decisions of this Court or the Court of Appeals suggest otherwise, they are overruled."

The case in Kentucky is called Lawrence v. Bingham, Greenbaum,Doll, LLP, and you can read the opinion here.  In it, the court adopted the following articulation of the Exoneration Rule: "to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a professional malpractice case against a criminal defense attorney, the convicted client must plead in his complaint that he has been exonerated of the underlying criminal conviction. He or she need not prove actual innocence, but they also may not rely solely upon a claim of actual innocence in the absence of an exonerating court decision through appeal or post-conviction order. Further, the statute of limitations on the legal malpractice claim does not begin to run until the postconviction exoneration occurs."

Iowa Supreme Court finds that proof of exoneration is not necessarily required for a convicted defendant to sue for legal malpractice -- UPDATED

In a many jurisdictions, a convicted criminal defendant who wants to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer has to obtain post conviction relief and prove that he or she was actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. This view has been criticized but still appears to be the majority view. Yet, a number of jurisdictions have recently decided otherwise.

Back in 2016, I reported that the Iowa Supreme Court decided actual innocence is no longer required as an element of the cause of action; and I just saw that it recently reaffirmed this new approach in a case decided this year.  Here is the story which includes a link to the opinion.

Other jurisdictions that have held innocence is not a requirement include Washington, Kansas (also here) and Idaho.

UPDATE (4/15/2018):  Thanks to Patrick J. Olmstead, Jr. who wrote to me to let me know that the Indiana Court of Appeals also abandoned the actual innocence requirement in a case called Beal v. Blinn, 9 N.E.3d 694 (2014).

3M settles case filed by state of Minnesota

3M has agreed to pay $850 million to settle a long-standing lawsuit filed by Minnesota, over the company’s disposal of perfluorochemicals used in Scotchgard and other products, which the state says polluted drinking water sources.  Go here for more details.

Why is this relevant?  Because this was the case in which the law firm Covington & Burling was disqualified for allegedly violating the "hot potato doctrine."  Go here, here, here and here for my original posts on the case.  The disqualification order was later remanded for further proceedings.

Florida adopts duty of technology competence and a requirement regarding technology CLE -- Updated

October 1, 2016. 
Last week the Supreme Court of Florida became the 25th state to adopt the duty of technological competence that the ABA adopted in its recent amendments to the Model Rules.  That's not terribly surprising as the language of the Model Rules usually eventually finds its way into state rules.

However, the Florida Supreme Court did go a bit further.  As explained by the court, the amendment "add[s] language to the comment providing that, in order to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education, including an understanding of the risks and benefits associated with the use of technology.

Go here for more information and a copy of the Court's order.   The ABA Journal online also has the story here.

Interestingly, once it is decided that having knowledge about technology is part of the duty of competence, it follows that it will become an element of the standard of care for malpractice cases. 

UPDATE 2/12/17:  The ABA Journal has a story here.

Idaho Supreme Court abandons actual innocence requirement for legal malpractice actions against former criminal defense attorneys

Just about a year ago I reported (here) that the two most recent decisions on whether a convicted criminal defendant had to prove actual innocence in order to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer had broken away from the majority view on the issue.  A few months later, however, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed the trend by adhering to the majority view and holding that a criminal defendant must establish actual innocence to sue the defense attorney for malpractice.

Now comes news that last week the Idaho Supreme Court has abandoned the actual innocence rule in a case called Molen v. Christian.  In part, the court concluded:

We hold that actual innocence is not an element of a criminal malpractice cause of action. Requiring a criminal malpractice plaintiff to prove actual innocence is contrary to the fundamental principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, a criminal defendant can be harmed separately from the harm he or she incurs as a result of being guilty of a crime. . . .  Additionally, as a practical matter, requiring actual innocence would essentially eliminate a defense attorney’s duty to provide competent counsel to a client he or she knows to be guilty. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that actual innocence is not an element of a criminal malpractice cause of action.

This means that three of the last four jurisdictions to consider the issue have rejected the majority approach, which makes me wonder if what is the majority has now shifted.  I have not done a state by state survey recently, so I don't know for sure.  However, I have not read anyone make that claim yet, so I assume the majority approach is still to require a showing of actual innocence.  If someone has information about the actual count of how many states follow each approach, please let me know. 

Washington State Supreme Court holds plaintiff has to show actual innocence in malpractice claim against former criminal defense lawyer

Back in February I reported (here) that the two most recent decisions on whether a convicted criminal defendant had to prove actual innocence in order to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer had broken away from the majority view on the issue.  The majority view is that the plaintiff does have to obtain post conviction relief and prove that he or she was actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Yet cases in Kansas and Iowa recently held otherwise.

Now comes news that the Washington State Supreme Court has reversed the trend and has held that a criminal defendant must establish actual innocence to sue the defense attorney for malpractice.  The case is called Piris v Kitching and you can read the opinion here.  The Legal Profession blog has more details here.

One Justice dissented in Piris, making what I think is a persuasive argument.  Interestingly, the argument is not that plaintiffs should not have to show actual innocence in all cases, but that it was improper to use that "rule" in this particular case because the plaintiff had already obtained post conviction relief.

Christopher Piris successfully obtained postconviction relief from a miscalculated sentence. But due to alleged attorney negligence, he was not timely resentenced and he spent more time imprisoned than his corrected sentence authorized. The majority holds that Piris cannot pursue malpractice claims against his defense attorneys unless he proves he is actually innocent of the underlying charges. I disagree. When a client wins postconviction relief for resentencing and attorney negligence results in the client's excessive imprisonment because the client did not timely receive the benefit of resentencing, it is no excuse to say that the client was subject to some imprisonment. Extending the "actual innocence rule" to the unique circumstances of this case serves only to perpetuate an injustice. I respectfully dissent...

In other words, the plaintiff in the malpractice case (defendant in the original criminal case) endured a longer stay in jail (more than a year) because of the attorney's conduct.  Yet the court says he was not entitled to a remedy because he was "due" some time in jail anyway.  The fact that the attorney's conduct caused him to suffer more than he was legally "due" is irrelevant to the majority.  I agree with the dissent in this case.  This view is not justified.  It allows for an injustice to go unpunished and gives a pass to an attorney whose conduct clearly caused injury to the client.  I don't see why it makes sense to give the attorney such a free pass.

Alcoholics and the Profession of Law

Professor Ronald Rotunda's most recent column is available here.

Iowa Supreme Court rejects notion that malpractice plaintiff has to show actual innocence in order to support claim against former criminal defense lawyer

In a many jurisdictions, a convicted criminal defendant who wants to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer has to obtain post conviction relief and prove that he or she was actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  This view has been criticized but still appears to be the majority view.  Yet, I have read recent cases where a few courts have abandoned this view in favor of the minority approach which does not require the convicted defendant (plaintiff in the malpractice claim) to show actual innocence.  The most recent court to so hold was the Kansas Supreme Court, something I reported about a month ago here.

Now comes news (via the Legal Profession blog) that the Iowa Supreme Court has taken the same step.  Actual innocence is no longer required as an element of the cause of action.  The case is called Barker v Capotosto, and it is available here.

UPDATE (7/21/16): The Chicago Legal Malpractice Blog has a story on the case here.