• Unfavorable Court Opinion is Not Prima Facia Proof of Legal Malpractice
On January 27, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision stating that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action cannot rely exclusively on a prior court opinion in the underlying lawsuit to support a prima facia claim of legal malpractice. In Fontaine v. Steen, the lawyer represented the plaintiff in a underlying divorce proceeding. During the divorce lawsuit, the lawyer attempted to sue another individual and make that third party a part of the divorce proceeding. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that the third-party individual could not properly be a part of the divorce lawsuit.
After the divorce matter ended, the plaintiff then brought a legal malpractice claim against her divorce lawyer, arguing in part that she was damaged by having to pay legal expenses as part of attempting to get the third party individual added to the divorce litigation when the court ultimately stated this individual could not be a proper party to the divorce. The plaintiff did not timely secure the serves of an expert witness to support her legal malpractice claim.
Under Minnesota law, most legal malpractice cases must be supported by expert testimony and the plaintiff must show that he or she has obtained that expert support by filing two separate affidavits at different points in the legal malpractice lawsuit. These requirements are pursuant to Minnesota Statute 544.42, which states that a plaintiff must serve the affidavits of expert support "where expert testimony is to be used ... to establish a prima facia case" of malpractice. The statute goes on to say that a failure to supply the affidavits "results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal of each cause of action with prejudice as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facia case."
In the malpractice case against her divorce lawyer, the plaintiff argued she was not required to serve an expert affidavit because there was a written decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that arguably criticized the divorce lawyer's decision to join the third-party individual to the divorce lawsuit. Because the plaintiff did not file an affidavit of expert support, instead relying upon the prior written court decision, the lawyer in the legal malpractice case sought to have the malpractice action dismissed for a failure to comply with Minnesota Statute 544.42.
In agreeing with the lawyer, the trial court dismissed the legal malpractice claim and, on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, stating, "an appellate determination that litigation strategy was ineffective does not per se establish a prima facia case of legal malpractice." As such, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was required to produce an expert affidavit to support her case and because she did not, her legal malpractice case was properly dismissed by the trial judge.
The moral of this story: Most legal malpractice actions in the State of Minnesota require expert support; thus, plaintiffs are best served by hiring qualified experts who can testify that a particular lawyer failed to meet accepted standards of care and caused the plaintiff harm. Given this decision, plaintiffs should not rely exclusively on court opinions to support their claim of legal malpractice - no matter how much the plaintiff thinks the decision criticizes the lawyers actions.
© The Law Office of Chad J. Hintz, P.L.L.C.. The materials and information on this website are not legal advice, nor are they intended to be legal advice. You are encouraged to consult an attorney for legal advice concerning your specific situation. Web design and development: Stylefish