Title: Schmidt v. Pearson, Evans, and Chadwick

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Paul A. SCHMIDT, Pauline B. Schmidt, Paul G.
Schmidt and Acro Corporation v. PEARSON,
EVANS, and CHADWICK, a Partnership; C. Thomas
Pearson, Jr.; Marshall Dale Evans; Charles R.
Chadwick; Stephen R. Bigger; Steven Tennant,
P.A.; and Steven Tennant

95-519                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 4, 1996


1.   Judgment -- judgment notwithstanding the verdict -- when trial
     court may enter such judgment. -- A trial court may enter
     judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if there is no
     substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and
     the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
     a trial court may not substitute its view for that of the
     jury, and, to be set aside, the jury's verdict must be clearly
     against the preponderance of the evidence; the standard
     regarding a motion for a new trial is the same; on appeal, the
     court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences
     therefrom in the light most favorable to the party for whom
     the original judgment was entered.  

2.   Attorney & client -- legal malpractice -- controlling
     principles. -- In legal malpractice actions, an attorney is
     negligent if he or she fails to exercise reasonable diligence
     and skill on behalf of the client; to prevail under a claim of
     legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the attorney's
     conduct fell below the generally accepted standard of practice
     and that this conduct proximately caused the plaintiff
     damages; to show damages and proximate cause, the plaintiff
     must show that but for the alleged negligence of the attorney,
     the result in the underlying action would have been different. 
     

3.   Appeal & error -- failure to request finding on issue
     submitted to jury on interrogatories constitutes waiver on
     appeal -- court cannot speak for jury. -- When the issues are
     submitted to the jury on interrogatories, failure to request
     a finding on one issue is a waiver of that issue on appeal,
     and the appellate court cannot say what the jury would have
     found. 

4.   Appeal & error -- use or misuse of retainer was not a
     negligence issue -- proximate cause not shown. -- Appellants'
     argument concerning the alleged misuse of a retainer was an
     issue dealing with breach of contract, not negligence, but,
     even if the retainer was negligently used, the appellants
     failed to show that the misapplied expenditures proximately
     caused the loss of their lender-liability suit.

5.   Appeal & error -- issue unsupported by argument or authority -
     - issue not reached on appeal. -- The court will not consider
     assignments of error that are unsupported by convincing
     argument or authority.

6.   Attorney & client -- malpractice -- attorney not labile for
     error of judgment made in good faith. -- Where, from the
     record as abstracted, the jury was not asked to return a
     finding as to whether appellants' counsel were negligent in
     the foreclosure action, appellants could not claim on appeal
     that the attorneys' acts in one cause of action were the
     proximate cause of their loss in a different cause of action;
     an attorney is not a guarantor that his judgment is infallible
     and is not liable for an error of judgment made in good faith.

7.   Attorney & client -- malpractice -- attorney's not liable for
     good-faith errors in judgment. -- An attorney is not liable to
     a client when, acting in good faith, he makes mere errors of
     judgment; here, the evidence showed the attorney used his best
     judgment in not dissolving the company, which might then have
     been forced into receivership and liquidation. 

8.   Attorney & client -- malpractice -- attorneys not liable for
     mistaken opinion on point of law. -- As a matter of law,
     attorneys are not liable for mistaken opinion on a point of
     law that has not been settled by a court of highest
     jurisdiction and on which reasonable attorneys may differ.

9.   Attorney & client -- trial court did not find attorneys
     negligent -- trial court was within its authority. -- Where
     the disagreement between their legal expert and the appellants
     was sufficient evidence that, as a matter of law, appellees
     were not negligent in failing to amend the appellants'
     complaint before the summary-judgment hearing, the trial court
     was within its authority to determine, as a matter of law,
     that appellees were not negligent in failing to amend the
     complaint before the summary-judgment hearing since whether
     appellees should have filed an amendment in these
     circumstances involved an unsettled legal issue about which
     experts could reasonably disagree.  

10.  Attorney & client -- issues raised by appellants were in
     contract -- issues were not proximate cause of appellants'
     failure to prevail on lender-liability claim. -- Appellants'
     contention concerning appellees' negligence was a contract
     issue and not one sounding in tort; even if they had appealed
     the foreclosure decree, no evidence was presented at trial
     that appellants would have prevailed and obtained reversal of
     the decree; the issue of the $1000 and appeal of the
     foreclosure decree was not a proximate cause of the
     appellants' failure to prevail in their lender-liability
     action.

11.  Attorney & client -- no substantial evidence found to support
     verdict for malpractice -- trial court's ruling was correct. -
     - The trial court was correct in finding no substantial
     evidence to support the verdict against appellees for legal
     malpractice where none of the issues presented by appellants
     was the proximate cause of the loss of their lender-liability
     claim against the bank; therefore, appellees were entitled to
     judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of law. 


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge;
affirmed.
     Henry McDermott, for appellants.
     Davis, Cox & Wright, by:  Constance G. Clark, Walter B. Cox,
and Don A. Taylor, for appellees Pearson Evans, and Chadwick, a
Partnership, C. Thomas Pearson, Jr., Marshall Dale Evans, and
Charles R. Chadwick.
     Warner, Smith, & Harris PLC, by:  G. Alan Wooten and Kathryn
Stocks Campbell, for appellees Stephen R. Bigger, Steven Tennant,
P.A., and Steven Tennant.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     The appellants, Paul A., Pauline B., and Paul G. Schmidt,
bring this legal malpractice suit against attorneys C. Thomas
Pearson, Jr., and Steven Tennant for their alleged negligence
committed in Schmidt v. McIlroy Bank & Trust, 306 Ark. 28,