Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
Crab eater seal
In Taylor v. Attorneys At Law, CAAP-22-000396 (unpublished), Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the defendant attorneys in a legal malpractice claim. Plaintiff retained them to prosecuted a wrongful death action arising out of the death of Taylor’s father. Defendants obtained a settlement of that case. Taylor sued and alleged legal malpractice. The Defendants moved for summary judgment. Because the defendants met their initial burden of production in their motion, summary judgment was granted. The quoted portion of the opinion demonstrates solid legal work by the Defendant attorneys and supports the decision to grant them summary judgment:
We conclude that the Defendants satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment through the declaration of Francis R. Alcain (Alcain), and the attached exhibits. Alcain, an attorney with Crudele & De Lima, represented that, pursuant to Taylor’s own instructions, Crudele & De Lima distributed the entirety of Taylor’s portion of the settlement award to Taylor’s daughter and sister in four disbursements,[2]
14. [Taylor] was informed regarding Crudele & De Lima’s receipt of the settlement funds.
15. [Taylor] instructed Crudele & De Lima to disburse his portion of the settlement funds to various third parties.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and accurate copy of the Receipt for Partial Distribution dated November 25, 2014, with the enclosed letter from [Taylor] dated November 17, 2014, instructing Crudele & De Lima to disburse his underinsured motorist policy funds to his daughter, Shainalyn Taylor.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and accurate copy of the Receipt for Partial Distribution dated January 29, 2015, with the enclosed letter from [Taylor] dated December 19, 2014 instructing Crudele & De Lima to disburse a portion of his settlement funds from the Settlement, Mutual Release and Indemnity Agreement to his daughter, Shainalyn Taylor.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and accurate copy of the Receipt for Partial Distribution dated March 4, 2015, with the enclosed letter from [Taylor] dated February 21, 2015 instructing Crudele & De Lima to disburse a portion of his settlement funds from the Settlement, Mutual Release and Indemnity Agreement to his sister, Melody Lindsey.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a true and accurate copy of the Receipt for Third and Final Distribution dated April 23, 2015, with the enclosed letter from [Taylor] dated April 11, 2015, instructing Crudele & De Lima to disburse the remaining portion of his settlement funds from the Settlement, Mutual Release, and Indemnity Agreement to his sister, Melody Lindsey.
20. In his instructions to disburse his settlement funds, [Taylor] did not object to the Settlement, Mutual Release, and Indemnity Agreement, and he did not dispute the resolution of the above-entitled matter.
We conclude that the Defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment of “presenting evidence negating an element of [Taylor’s legal malpractice] claim” or demonstrating that Taylor would “be unable to carry his . . . burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 60, 292 P.3d at 1290 (citations omitted).
The burden then shifted to Taylor, who did not dispute the evidence presented by the Defendants and did not present any specific facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Taylor did not present any evidence that the Defendants breached any duty they may have owed regarding the disbursement of Taylor’s settlement funds. See id. at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87 (“[W]hen the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production[,] . . . the burden shift[s] to the nonmoving party to respond to the motion for summary judgment and demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial.”) (citation omitted).
Comment: this is a classic case-within-a-case. Plaintiff has to show that, but for the breach of the duty of care, he would have had a better outcome in the underlying litigation. Because plaintiff made no showing his legal malpractice case did not sustain its burden of proof and summary judgment was granted.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.