Lessons from Recent Utah Legal Malpractice Cases
Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
Pages | 12 |
Publication year | 2008 |
Citation | Vol. 21 No. 1 Pg. 12 |
Date | 01 January 2008 |
Vol. 21, No. 1, 12. Lessons from Recent Utah Legal Malpractice Cases
Utah Bar Journal
Vol. 21, No. 1
January/February 2008
Vol. 21, No. 1
January/February 2008
Lessons from Recent Utah Legal Malpractice
Cases
Lessons from Recent Utah Legal Malpractice
Cases
by Michael Skolnick
We can all learn from our mistakes. But it's likely less
painful to learn from other's mistakes - either actual or
alleged. This article is offered in that spirit - a
compilation of some recent Utah attorney malpractice cases
containing a grab bag of valuable lessons for every day
practitioners. "Recent" is arbitrarily defined as
the last two years
Utah's most recent attorney malpractice case is
Crestwood Cove Apartments Business Trust v. Turner
2007 UT 48, 164 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2007). In Crestwood
Cove, the former client claimed that the appellee had
committed malpractice by failing to timely contest the
application of Utah's unlawful detainer statute and its
treble damage provision, and by failing to raise the
appropriate measure of damages. The underlying unlawful
detainer case is almost comical in its mishandling. Prior to
the appellee's representation, Crestwood had been
represented by a succession of other attorneys. Due to the
client's inattentiveness
and various contributions by a variety of counsel
Crestwood's opponent transformed a judgment for several
thousand dollars into ownership of an apartment complex worth
millions.
In this case, the appellee unsuccessfully argued to the trial
court that it should not have trebled damages in setting the
redemption price for the apartment complex. The trial court,
as it turns out incorrectly, disagreed and set a redemption
price of nearly $1,000,000. Crestwood appealed the trial
court's decision, but eventually settled its claims in
the underlying case and dismissed its appeal. Crestwood then
filed a legal malpractice action against appellee.
Appellee moved for summary judgment, based on the doctrine of
abandonment. Appellee argued that by settling the appeal in
the underlying case, the former client effectively precluded
appellee from proving that it was judicial error and not
attorney error which caused the adverse outcome in the
underlying case.
The trial court in the malpractice action agreed and granted
appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the Utah
Supreme Court refused to apply the abandonment doctrine
instead upholding the summary judgment on proximate cause
grounds. The supreme court concluded there was no reason to
adopt the abandonment doctrine because the existing framework
for legal malpractice actions in Utah adequately protects
attorneys' rights, even when there has been a settlement
of the underlying...
To continue reading
Request your trial