A client’s malpractice complaint was fatally vague about how the client could have fared better in the underlying case but for its defense lawyer’s alleged blunders, a divided Seventh Circuit panel held Dec. 21 ( West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher , 7th Cir., No. 14-2731, 12/21/16 ).
The malpractice complaint furnished lots of detail about what the lawyer supposedly did wrong but didn’t plausibly describe a causal link between those missteps and the adverse outcome of the underlying dispute, according to the majority opinion by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple.
Judge David F. Hamilton dissented, saying the majority applied federal pleading standards far too stringently. The complaint contained specific factual allegations showing the company had a solid defense absent the lawyer’s alleged malpractice, he said.
At issue was whether the complaint met the “plausibility” pleading standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
The divided decision highlights the challenge of applying this standard to malpractice actions. Malpractice complaints need to include plenty of detail about the merits of the claim or defense that the client accuses the lawyer of mishandling, the decision suggests.
West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. alleged that Paul Schumacher and his firm Roddy, Leahy, Guill & Ziema Ltd. committed malpractice in defending West Bend against a workers’ compensation claim.
The complaint asserted that Schumacher failed to prepare for the hearing, disclosed the defense theory to opposing counsel, and conceded liability without authorization. These breaches compromised West Bend’s ability to defend the claim, West Bend alleged.
The court said that after Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a complaint must have enough factual content to state a plausible claim in order to survive a motion to dismiss.
West Bend didn’t manage to plausibly state the causation and harm elements of a legal malpractice claim under Illinois law even though the company had two chances to amend its complaint, the court found.
The complaint adequately described Shumacher’s duty and breach of duty, but said little about the underlying workers’ compensation claim and West Bend’s defenses to it. Rather, the complaint summarily said the company had “certain factual defenses and a medical causation defense” and alleged that the company lost “valuable factual and legal defenses.”
These conclusory assertions didn’t plausibly describe a lost defense that would have assured West Bend’s success in the workers’ compensation case absent Schumacher’s alleged errors, the court said.
The complaint left the court to speculate as to whether and how West Bend would have prevailed in the underlying case without the alleged breaches, Ripple said.
Judge Richard A. Posner concurred.
Peterson, Johnson & Murray S.C. and Timothy J. Pike, Libertyville, Ill., represented West Bend. Flaherty & Youngerman P.C. represented Schumacher and his firm.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joan C. Rogers in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: S. Ethan Bowers at email@example.com
Full text at http://src.bna.com/kWU.
Copyright © 2016 American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)