Case Title: Reed v. Glynn

Citation: 168 Vt. 504, 724 A.2d 464

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Reed v. Glynn  (97-468); 168 Vt. 504; 724 A.2d 464

[Filed 18-Dec-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-468

Robert Reed                                      Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.                                          Windsor Superior Court

John Glynn                                       September Term, 1998

  Alan W. Cheever, J.

  Claude T. Buttrey of Schuster, Buttrey & Wing, P.A., Lebanon, New
  Hampshire, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Potter Stewart, Jr., Brattleboro, and William C. Saturley and Gordon
  J. MacDonald of Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Gordon, P.C., Manchester, New
  Hampshire, for Defendant-Appellee

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Robert Reed appeals from an adverse judgement
  entered in the superior court on his claim of malpractice against
  defendant, John Glynn, the attorney who represented him at state expense in
  a probation revocation proceeding.  Plaintiff argues that the trial court
  erred in determining that his exclusive right of action is against the
  state.  We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse.

       The material facts are not in dispute.  The defender general is
  responsible for providing legal services to indigent defendants either
  personally or through public defenders or other attorneys. See 13 V.S.A. §
  5253.   Defendant, a private attorney, contracted with the defender general
  to provide representation to indigent defendants in Windsor County in cases
  in which the public defender is disqualified by a conflict of interest or
  is otherwise not available.

       Defendant's contract with the defender general included the  following
  provisions:

  7. Supervision of Contractor.  The Defender General may not
     supervise or control in any way the representation of
     persons receiving legal services as defined in paragraph
     1 of this agreement.

 

   10.  Insurance.  Before commencin g work on this contract the
        Contractor must provide the following minimum
        insurance coverages. (a) Professional liability insurance
        for any and all services performed under this contract,
        with minimum coverage of $300,000.00 per occurrence. . .
        . .  No warranty is made that the coverages and limits
        listed herein are adequate to cover and protect the
        interests of the Contractor for the Contractor's 
        operations.

   11.  Independence.  The Contractor, and any agents and
        employees of the Contractor, shall act in an independent
        capacity and not as officers or employees of the State.

  Defendant was assigned to represent plaintiff in a probation revocation
  proceeding.  After a contested hearing, the court found plaintiff had
  violated the conditions of his probation and sentenced him to serve
  three-to-five years in jail.  Plaintiff was dissatisfied with defendant s
  representation in part because he did not explore a favorable plea
  agreement with the probation officer and the state's  attorney.  Plaintiff
  acquired new counsel who secured an agreement with the state's attorney
  that plaintiff would enter a substance abuse  program and avoid
  incarceration. After spending thirty-seven days in prison, plaintiff was
  released.

       After being released, plaintiff sued defendant in Windsor County
  Superior Court for attorney malpractice.  Defendant moved for summary
  judgement arguing that he was a state employee, and, as a result, plaintiff
  s exclusive remedy was to sue the State of Vermont. Relying on this Court s
  decision in  Bradshaw v. Joseph, 164 Vt. 154,