ILNews

Court upholds judgment in legal malpractice suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an attorney and law firm in a legal malpractice suit, although the judges didn’t agree on the professional obligations of the firm based on its contract.

The judges unanimously concluded in Gail M. Flatow and Flatow Comer, LLP v. Dwane Ingalls, No. 49A02-0910-CV-994, that Dwane Ingalls didn’t put before the appellate court any legal argument that Gail Flatow or Flatow Comer should have made or evidence that they should have designated in response to the summary judgment motion in the suit in which they represented Ingalls.

Ingalls and the firm had a “contract to hire attorney,” in which the firm would represent Ingalls only in his defamation claim against his former employer, Indianapolis Power & Light. The firm would draft a motion for summary judgment and represent him in this “matter through the end of trial.” The firm would also keep Ingalls informed of the status of the suit. Ingalls also had several other claims against his employer.

Flatow filed the motion for partial summary judgment and brief in support of the defamation claim. IPL filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims, including the defamation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to IPL on its cross-motion and dismissed Ingalls’ remaining claims with prejudice.

Ingalls filed a legal malpractice complaint against several attorneys, including Flatow and the firm Flatow Comer. He said Flatow was negligent in failing to respond to IPL’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

In affirming the trial court, Judge Margret Robb wrote that Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(c), which discusses limited representation, hasn’t been addressed in any “substantive way” by Indiana’s appellate courts. But she noted Comments 6 and 7, which discuss when limited representation may be appropriate, and that the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining legal knowledge and skill reasonably necessary for representation.

The majority concluded that Flatow and the firm’s only duty was to file a motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim, reply to any response, and keep Ingalls informed of the status of that matter. The package Flatow sent to Ingalls with IPL’s motions included both the response to his motion for partial summary judgment and IPL’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Ingalls was out of town when the package came. Because of this, they didn’t breach their duty to maintain contact with Ingalls on the matter, wrote Judge Robb.

There isn’t any designated evidence to show the result of Ingalls’ partial motion for summary judgment would have been different if a reply had been filed, wrote Judge Robb. The majority also concluded Flatow and the firm’s representation didn’t include a response to IPL’s cross-motion for summary judgment or that its duty to Ingalls encompassed every aspect of the defamation claim.

Judge James Kirsch in a separate opinion concurring in result agreed that Ingalls didn’t show whether any negligence on the part of Flatow and the firm was a proximate cause of his alleged damages. But the judge took a “more expansive view of the professional obligations” Flatow and the firm owed to Ingalls.

To him, the correct interpretation of the contract was that although Flatow and the firm limited their representation to Ingalls’ defamation claim, they didn’t limit their representation of that claim.

“To the contrary, they agreed to represent Ingalls on the defamation claim to ‘the end of trial.’ While my colleagues say that an attorney cannot be negligent for failing to do what there was no duty to do, I believe that the Flatow Defendants had the express duty to represent Ingalls on his defamation claim and to take all steps required by the applicable standard of care regarding the summary judgment proceedings and, thereafter, through to the end of trial,” he wrote.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT