Articles Posted in Actual Innocence

In a recent California legal malpractice case, Andrade v. Purviance, No. A161331, California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District 2021, the court upheld the dismissal of a legal malpractice case against a criminal defense attorney where the plaintiff could not show that she had been exonerated.  In recent years, some scholars have criticized the rule, but it remains the majority rule in the United States. The court explained:

The elements of a legal malpractice action are “(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney’s negligence.” (Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1199 (Coscia).)

However, to succeed on a claim for legal malpractice arising from a criminal proceeding, a plaintiff also must prove that he or she is actually innocent. (Coscia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1199-1200.) “In Coscia, the Supreme Court addressed . . . `whether a former criminal defendant must obtain exoneration by postconviction relief as a prerequisite to obtaining relief for legal malpractice.'” (Wilkinson v. Zelen(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 37, 46.) The Coscia court concluded, “a plaintiff must obtain postconviction relief in the form of a final disposition of the underlying criminal case—for example, by acquittal after retrial, reversal on appeal with directions to dismiss the charges, reversal followed by the People’s refusal to continue the prosecution, or a grant of habeas corpus relief—as a prerequisite to proving actual innocence in a malpractice action against former criminal defense counsel.” (Coscia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1205, fn. omitted.) This requirement is grounded in the principles that criminal defendants are provided constitutional and statutory guarantees against ineffective assistance of counsel, and that guilty defendants should not be able to profit from their wrongdoing or shift responsibility for the consequences of their illegal behavior to their criminal defense counsel. (Id.at pp. 1203-1204; Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 537-538, 542-543.) Moreover, the actual innocence requirement avoids the risk of inconsistent resolutions in criminal and civil proceedings, serves judicial economy by precluding malpractice actions where a criminal defendant has been denied relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, and encourages attorneys to represent criminal defendants by reducing meritless malpractice claims. (Coscia, at p. 1204.)

On June 30, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court decided Laughlin v. Perry and Flotman, No. SC98012. The court held that the defendants, two public defenders, were immune from suit because public defenders are state employees performing discretionary acts. In Laughlin’s case, the two public defenders missed a jurisdictional problem with his prosecution in state court for burglarizing a post office. They did not object that the Missouri courts lacked jurisdiction over the federal post office. Eventually Laughlin discovered the jurisdictional problem, filed a habeas corpus petition and was released from custody.

This is a policy question and the Missouri court has resolved it in favor of the public defenders. I do not question the statutory interpretation, but the ruling creates a moral hazard and a further risk for those who cannot afford an attorney in a criminal proceeding.

http://www.clintonlaw.net

This is another very important and recurring issue in the legal malpractice field. Most states have a rule that provides that a criminal defendant cannot sue his former attorney unless he establishes that he is actually innocent. Texas prefers the term “exoneration.” This year the Texas Supreme Court, in Gray v. Skelton, No. 18-0386, held that a criminal defendant can sue her lawyer once her conviction is vacated. During the malpractice case, however, she must demonstrate that she was innocent.

Patricia Skelton was an attorney who was convicted of fraud for allegedly altering a will. (She apparently cut and pasted signatures from one version of the will which had been damaged by water to another version printed out of a computer) After her conviction the probate court hearing the estate case found that there was no alteration of the terms of the will. Eventually Ms. Skelton was able to get her criminal conviction vacated. She then sued her criminal defense attorney for legal malpractice. The lower courts dismissed her case, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the case. The opinion discusses prior Texas decisions and then provides a legal definition of “exoneration.”  The discussion is quoted below:

Under the now so-called Peeler [v. Hughes and Luce, 909 S.W. 2d 494 (Texas 1995)\ doctrine, convicts may not sue their criminal-defense attorneys for malpractice unless “they have been exonerated on direct appeal, through post-conviction relief, or otherwise.” Id. at 498. This is so, the Peeler plurality explained, because “allowing civil recovery for convicts impermissibly shifts responsibility for the crime away from the convict.” Id. Without this rule, malpractice claims brought by convicted criminals would “drastically diminish[ ] the consequences of the convicts’ criminal conduct and seriously undermine[ ] our system of criminal justice.” Id. And as the plurality also noted, permitting a convicted criminal to recover damages through a legal-malpractice claim would allow that criminal “to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found a claim upon his iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.” Id. at 497 (quoting State ex rel. O’Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498, 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)).

One issue that arises frequently is whether or not a criminal defendant must obtain a finding of actual innocence before he can sue trial counsel for legal malpractice. The Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the Exoneration Rule on December 13, 2018, in the case of Lawrence v. Bingham.  The Rule has been criticized by some scholars and lawyers on the ground that it is unfair to criminal defendants and that it allows bad lawyers to escape liability.

The link to the case is below:

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/2018/2017-sc-000531-dg.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-12-14-professional-malpractice-ethics-c3b6da0bc8&utm_content=text-case-read-more-3

This is an issue that has become controversial. In most states, a criminal defendant who was convicted cannot sue for legal malpractice unless he establishes “actual innocence” or in New York, a colorable claim of innocence. Roy v. The Law Offices of B. Alan Seidler, P.C., (17 Civ. 5644 S.D. N.Y.)   is one such case.  Roy was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to 87 months in prison. His conviction was affirmed on appeal.  His legal malpractice complaint, which alleged several alleged failings by his trial counsel, was dismissed.

The court explained the rule in this way:

Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim must be dismissed. As the Second Circuit has repeatedly held, “under New York law, a plaintiff cannot state a malpractice claim against his criminal defense attorney if his conviction `remains undisturbed.'” Hoffenberg v. Meyers, 73 F. App’x 515, 516 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Britt v. Legal Aid Soc., Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 443, 446, 718 N.Y.S.2d 264 (2000)); see also Abuhouran v. Lans, 269 F. App’x 134, 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Thus, to succeed, [plaintiff] would have had to show innocence or a colorable claim of innocence.”).

Another State Supreme Court, here Idaho, has abandoned the actual innocence rule. That rule holds that a criminal defendant cannot sue his lawyer for legal malpractice unless he establishes actual innocence.

The court explained:

This Court has addressed a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal case only once, in Lamb v. Manweiler, 129 Idaho 269, 923 P.2d 976 (1996). Lamb did not address the statute of limitations issue; however, Lamb did address—in dicta—the actual innocence element. Id. at 272, 923 P.2d at 979. Before the appeal reached this Court, the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment. In doing so, the Idaho Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in Idaho: where a legal malpractice suit stems from the representation of a client in a criminal prosecution, must a plaintiff prove actual innocence? The Idaho Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff must prove that he or she was in fact innocent of a crime. Manweiler petitioned this Court for review, and this Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. This Court did not expressly require actual innocence as an element of the claim; rather, it stated that “Lamb does not dispute the proposition that in a legal malpractice action arising from representation of a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the person pursuing the claim must establish the additional element of actual innocence of the underlying criminal charges.” Id.

I have written several times over the past year about the actual innocence rule, which requires a criminal defendant to prove actual innocence before he can sue his criminal defense lawyer for legal malpractice. Several courts have abandoned the rule in recent years. Washington, however, has decided in the case listed below to uphold the Rule. I don’t agree with the reasoning of the decision. There is no just reason to give the criminal defense lawyers immunity from malpractice lawsuits if they make an error that rises to the level of malpractice.

Professor Bernabe of John Marshall has written an excellent article on this case. You can find the article at this link. http://bernabepr.blogspot.com/2016/07/washington-state-supreme-court-holds.html

Source: PIRIS v. Kitching, 345 P. 3d 13 – Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2015 – Google Scholar