ILNews

Court of Appeals allows legal malpractice case to continue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The legal malpractice action filed by a man who pleaded guilty to money laundering – when he had the possibility to plead guilty to a misdemeanor if not for his attorney’s actions – will proceed after the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the attorney’s motion for summary judgment.

Edward Blinn Jr. filed the legal malpractice complaint against Marion attorney Shane Beal in 2007. Blinn was being investigated by the FBI and hired Beal as his attorney. Beal allowed Blinn to enter into a proffer agreement with the government. In exchange for his truthful cooperation, the government would allow Blinn to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and agreed to not use Blinn’s statements against him if the government later decided to file more serious charges.

But Blinn only participated in one proffer session; Beal did not respond to federal agents’ attempts to contact him for months. When he was finally cornered in the courthouse by the agents, Beal said Blinn was no longer interested in cooperating. Beal did not inform Blinn that the FBI wanted to continue speaking with him. Blinn was later indicted on a federal felony money laundering charge, to which he later agreed to plead guilty.

This case led to a malpractice complaint by Blinn against Richard Kammen, who represented Blinn after he was indicted. That complaint was dismissed. Robert Hammerle, who also represented Blinn in the matter and negotiated the plea agreement, received a public reprimand in 2011 over his fee arrangement with Blinn.

In Shane Beal and The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Edwin Blinn, Jr., 27A03-1306-PL-235 , Beal is seeking summary judgment in the legal malpractice complaint, which the trial court denied based on a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Beal’s conduct during the federal investigation resulted in a harsher sentence for Blinn.  

“Beal represented Blinn in a federal criminal action, despite Beal’s limited experience with federal litigation, his unfamiliarity with the legal construction of a federal proffer session, its purpose and its consequences, and his failure to convey a request for further interviews as part of the proffer session to Blinn. Designated evidence reflects that a completed proffer session might have resulted in a reduced sentence. As such, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Beal’s conduct resulted in a harsher sentence and even jail time for Blinn,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote.

The judges rejected Beal’s argument that public policy bars a person convicted of a crime from imposing liability on others through a civil action for the results of his or her own criminal conduct. Under his theory, a criminal defendant, once convicted, could never pursue a legal malpractice claim.

“[T]he determination that, based on the evidence and argument at trial, a criminal defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as the issue of whether the lawyer’s negligent representation contributed to or caused the resulting conviction. Beal’s argument, however, allows criminal defense attorneys to hide behind their own negligence by asserting the client’s conviction—albeit caused by the lawyer’s negligence—as a defense to a claim of legal malpractice,” Riley wrote. “The public not only has an interest in encouraging the representation of criminal defendants, but it also has an interest in making sure that the representation is, at the very least, not negligent.”

Beal resigned from the Indiana bar in August 2013.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT