Title: Roberts v. Lanier

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 04/15/11 
Rel: 06/10/2011 as M o d i f i e d on Denial of Rehearing. 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 
1100045 
Barbara Roberts 
v. 
Steve Lanier e t a l . 
Appeal from Cherokee C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-09-11) 
WOODALL, J u s t i c e . 
B a r b a r a 
R o b e r t s 
sued 
Steve 
L a n i e r 
( " L a n i e r " ) , 
Steve 
L a n i e r , 
P.C. 
("the f i r m " ) , 
Rodney 
L o r i n g 
S t a l l i n g s 
( " S t a l l i n g s " ) , and Coggin & S t a l l i n g s , 
L.L.C. 
("Coggin"), 
a s s e r t i n g 
c l a i m s 
r e l a t e d 
t o 
L a n i e r ' s 
and 
S t a l l i n g s ' s 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f 
R o b e r t s r e g a r d i n g a c e r t a i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r 
1100045 
i n Alabama.
1 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d summary judgments i n 
f a v o r 
of 
L a n i e r 
and 
the 
f i r m , 
S t a l l i n g s , 
and 
Coggin. 
We 
a f f i r m i n p a r t and r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and we remand the case t o 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On 
A p r i l 21, 2006, R o b e r t s was 
a r r e s t e d on a charge of 
murder and was 
p l a c e d i n the Cherokee County, Alabama, 
j a i l . 
She c o n t a c t e d L a n i e r , an a t t o r n e y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law i n 
G e o r g i a , 
who 
was 
t h e n r e p r e s e n t i n g R o b e r t s on a misdemeanor 
charge i n G e o r g i a . 
L a n i e r has been d o i n g b u s i n e s s 
as Steve 
L a n i e r , P.C., 
s i n c e 1997 
and i s the s o l e a t t o r n e y a s s o c i a t e d 
w i t h the 
f i r m . 
L a n i e r t r a v e l e d t o Cherokee County and met w i t h R o b e r t s 
w h i l e she was i n the Cherokee County j a i l . 
R o b e r t s and L a n i e r 
e x e c u t e d an employment agreement, by w h i c h L a n i e r a g r e e d t o 
p r o v i d e 
l e g a l 
s e r v i c e s t o R o b e r t s 
i n Alabama on 
the 
then 
p e n d i n g charge 
of 
n o n c a p i t a l murder 
("the 
c o n t r a c t " ) . 
The 
c o n t r a c t 
p r o v i d e d 
t h a t 
R o b e r t s 
would 
pay 
L a n i e r 
a 
1 R o b e r t s a l s o sued the Alabama S t a t e Bar. 
However, the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t s judgments i n f a v o r of 
the 
o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s r e n d e r e d the c l a i m s a g a i n s t the Alabama S t a t e 
Bar moot. 
R o b e r t s has not a p p e a l e d t h a t 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 
2 
1100045 
" n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r " 
of 
$50,000 
f o r 
h i s 
s e r v i c e s .
2 
R o b e r t s a l s o e x e c u t e d a power of a t t o r n e y t o a l l o w L a n i e r t o 
w i t h d r a w $50,000 from her bank a c c o u n t s . 
S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , 
L a n i e r 
w i t h d r e w 
the $50,000 from R o b e r t s ' s 
a c c o u n t s 
and, 
a c c o r d i n g t o h i s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y , 
d e p o s i t e d the money i n 
the f i r m ' s b u s i n e s s a c c o u n t , not i t s t r u s t a c c o u n t . 
R o b e r t s 
c l a i m s 
t h a t , 
a t 
the 
time 
t h e y 
e x e c u t e d 
the 
c o n t r a c t , L a n i e r " f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t o [ h e r ] t h a t he was 
not 
l i c e n s e d [ t o p r a c t i c e l a w ] i n A l a b a m a ; t h a t he would have t o 
a s s o c i a t e 
l o c a l c o u n s e l 
i n Alabama on the case i n o r d e r 
t o 
seek p e r m i s s i o n 
t o be a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c a s e ; and 
t h a t R o b e r t s would be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Alabama 
c o u n s e l ' s 
f e e s . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , 
a t 15. 
L a n i e r 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t 
"he 
e x p l a i n e d t o [ R o b e r t s ] i n t h e i r 
i n i t i a l m e e t i n g or w i t h i n a 
few days t h e r e a f t e r t h a t s i n c e he was not l i c e n s e d i n Alabama, 
he would be r e q u i r e d t o a p p l y f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o r e p r e s e n t 
h e r , 
2 L a n i e r 
has 
conceded t h a t the 
" n o n r e f u n d a b l e r e t a i n e r " 
language i s p r o h i b i t e d i n Alabama, t h a t 
"the 
c o n t r a c t 
was 
' u n e n f o r c e a b l e 
as 
w r i t t e n under Alabama 
law,'" 
and 
" t h a t 
r e t a i n i n g 
the 
e n t i r e 
fee 
w i t h o u t 
p e r f o r m i n g 
e q u i v a l e n t 
s e r v i c e s would be p r o h i b i t e d . " 
L a n i e r and the f i r m ' s 
b r i e f , 
a t 4 (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . 
3 
1100045 
and t h a t an Alabama a t t o r n e y would have t o be i n v o l v e d i n h e r 
d e f e n s e . " 
L a n i e r and t h e f i r m ' s b r i e f , a t 7. 
A f t e r m e e t i n g w i t h R o b e r t s , 
L a n i e r a s s o c i a t e d 
S t a l l i n g s 
as 
l o c a l c o u n s e l . 
A t t h a t t i m e , 
S t a l l i n g s was a member a t 
C o g g i n , w h i c h was d i s s o l v e d i n December 2008. 
R o b e r t s says t h a t on A p r i l 27, 2006, a t a h e a r i n g i n t h e 
Cherokee D i s t r i c t C o u r t on h e r n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r charge, she 
l e a r n e d f o r t h e f i r s t time t h a t L a n i e r was not l i c e n s e d t o 
p r a c t i c e law i n 
Alabama and t h a t S t a l l i n g s had been a s s o c i a t e d 
on h e r case. 
She says t h a t S t a l l i n g s t o l d h e r a t t h e h e a r i n g 
t h a t she would have t o e n t e r 
i n t o a s e p a r a t e 
f e e agreement 
w i t h him. 
R o b e r t s a l l e g e s t h a t on May 1, 2006, she e x e c u t e d 
a f e e agreement w i t h S t a l l i n g s , t h e r e b y 
a g r e e i n g t o pay him 
$35,000 t o r e p r e s e n t 
h e r on the n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
charge. 
L a n i e r responds t h a t 
t h e r e i s no w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t 
between 
R o b e r t s and S t a l l i n g s i n t h e r e c o r d and t h a t he p a i d S t a l l i n g s 
$5,000 out of t h e $50,000 he had w i t h d r a w n from R o b e r t s ' s 
a c c o u n t s . 
R o b e r t s 
says 
t h a t 
on May 
1, 2006, she a t t e m p t e d t o 
t e r m i n a t e L a n i e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n because she saw no need f o r 
two 
a t t o r n e y s 
t o 
r e p r e s e n t 
h e r on 
t h e 
n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
4 
1100045 
charge. 
A c c o r d i n g t o R o b e r t s , she r e q u e s t e d a r e f u n d o f 
t h e 
$50,000 p r e v i o u s l y withdrawn from h e r bank a c c o u n t s by L a n i e r 
as h i s " n o n r e f u n d a b l e " 
r e t a i n e r . 
R o b e r t s 
a l s o 
says 
t h a t 
L a n i e r t o l d h e r t h a t "based on t h e ' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' 
r e t a i n e r 
language o f h i s 
employment c o n t r a c t she was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a 
r e f u n d o f any f e e s . 
L a n i e r f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t 
R o b e r t s 
might as w e l l l e t him c o n t i n u e w o r k i n g on h e r case s i n c e she 
would n o t be r e c e i v i n g a r e f u n d o f any f e e s even i f 
he was 
t e r m i n a t e d . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 19. 
R o b e r t s says she t h e n 
a g r e e d t o a l l o w L a n i e r t o c o n t i n u e h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n u n t i l 
h i s 
b i l l a b l e hours e q u a l e d $50,000 o r she was i n d i c t e d f o r 
c a p i t a l murder, w h i c h e v e r came 
f i r s t . 
In J u l y 2006, L a n i e r f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r 
p r o hac 
 
v i c e a d m i s s i o n i n o r d e r t o appear as c o u n s e l i n R o b e r t s ' s 
c a s e .
3 
He was g r a n t e d p r o hac v i c e s t a t u s on August 3, 2006. 
That same day, t h e d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t f i n i s h e d i t s p r e l i m i n a r y 
h e a r i n g on R o b e r t s ' s n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r charge and s e n t h e r 
case t o t h e g r a n d 
j u r y . 
S t a l l i n g s 
a l o n e was p r e s e n t t o 
3See R u l e V I I , R u l e s G o v e r n i n g A d m i s s i o n t o t h e Alabama 
S t a t e B a r . 
5 
1100045 
r e p r e s e n t R o b e r t s a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g i n 
t h e d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t . 
On November 2, 2006, t h e 
g r a n d j u r y i n d i c t e d R o b e r t s 
f o r 
c a p i t a l murder. 
R o b e r t s was r e t u r n e d t o t h e Cherokee 
County 
j a i l , where she 
was h e l d w i t h o u t bond. 
R o b e r t s c l a i m s t h a t 
"at 
S t a l l i n g s ' [ s ] r e q u e s t , R o b e r t s had a l l 
o f 
h e r 
m a i l f o r w a r d e d t o 
[ h i s ] 
law o f f i c e so t h a t S t a l l i n g s 
c o u l d 
t e n d 
t o and 
o v e r s e e 
e v e r y 
a s p e c t 
o f 
R o b e r t s ' [ s ] 
p e r s o n a l 
l i f e , 
t o i n c l u d e 
b u t n o t 
l i m i t e d t o : t h e 
payment o f a l l 
o f h e r 
monthly 
b i l l s 
and 
expenses. 
A t S t a l l i n g s ' [ s ] r e q u e s t , R o b e r t s 
a l s o 
r e l i n q u i s h e d h e r b a n k i n g account 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
and check b o o k ( s ) t o S t a l l i n g s . 
" T h e r e a f t e r , S t a l l i n g s would p e r i o d i c a l l y appear 
a t t h e Cherokee 
County 
J a i l and have R o b e r t s 
s i g n 
b l a n k checks f o r 
t h e s t a t e d purpose o f u s i n g t h e 
checks t o 
pay R o b e r t s ' [ s ] 
monthly b i l l s and expenses 
( i . e . , home u t i l i t i e s , 
c r e d i t c a r d b i l l s , e t c . ) 
and 
expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h R o b e r t s ' s c r i m i n a l c a s e . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 
21. 
R o b e r t s a l l e g e s t h a t , i n s t e a d o f u s i n g t h e b l a n k checks 
f o r 
purposes she had i n t e n d e d , S t a l l i n g s made t h e checks 
p a y a b l e t o h i m s e l f and t o o k t h e funds f o r 
h i s 
p e r s o n a l 
u s e . 
She 
c l a i m s t h a t , between November 2006 and O c t o b e r 
2008, 
S t a l l i n g s m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
$100,000 o f 
h e r 
f u n d s . 
On November 
2, 
2006, 
L a n i e r 
met 
w i t h 
R o b e r t s and 
p r e s e n t e d h e r w i t h 
a 
second 
employment 
c o n t r a c t , 
which 
6 
1100045 
p r o v i d e d 
t h a t R o b e r t s would pay L a n i e r an a d d i t i o n a l $50,000 
" n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r " t o r e p r e s e n t 
her on the 
c a p i t a l -
murder charge. 
R o b e r t s r e f u s e d t o s i g n the second 
c o n t r a c t . 
L a n i e r 
t e s t i f i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he c o n t i n u e d 
t o work 
on t h e case under the a s s u m p t i o n 
t h a t R o b e r t s wanted him t o 
c o n t i n u e and t h a t he u l t i m a t e l y would be r e t a i n e d by h e r . 
He 
w i t h d r e w from r e p r e s e n t i n g R o b e r t s i n March 2007. 
R o b e r t s was 
u l t i m a t e l y c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder 
and 
was s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t the p o s s i b i l i t y o f 
p a r o l e . 
On F e b r u a r y 10, 2009, i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h 
a n o t h e r 
a t t o r n e y , R o b e r t s says she l e a r n e d f o r t h e f i r s t time t h a t the 
n o n r e f u n d a b l e - r e t a i n e r 
language 
i n 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
i s 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e i n Alabama and t h a t L a n i e r ' s 
r e l i a n c e on 
t h a t 
language i n r e f u s i n g t o r e f u n d any p a r t of the f e e t o R o b e r t s 
was 
improper. 
E i g h t days l a t e r , on F e b r u a r y 18, 2009, R o b e r t s 
f i l e d a 
l e g a l - m a l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n i n the Cherokee C i r c u i t C o u r t , naming 
L a n i e r , 
the 
f i r m ,
4 
and 
S t a l l i n g s 
as 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
R o b e r t s 
amended her c o m p l a i n t t o add a c l a i m r e q u e s t i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y 
4 R o b e r t s 
a l l e g e s 
t h a t the 
f i r m i s l i a b l e 
f o r 
L a n i e r ' s 
a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t under a t h e o r y o f r e s p o n d e a t 
s u p e r i o r . 
7 
1100045 
judgment and t o add t h e Alabama S t a t e B a r
5 and C o g g i n as 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
A l l 
t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e s i n 
Cherokee County r e c u s e d 
t h e m s e l v e s , and t h e case was a s s i g n e d t o Etowah C i r c u i t Judge 
C l a r k 
H a l l . 
L a n i e r and t h e f i r m ( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes r e f e r r e d t o 
c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s " ) moved t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o " d i s m i s s t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e F i r s t Amended C o m p l a i n t 
which 
p u r p o r t s t o be a 
' d e c l a r a t o r y judgment 
a c t i o n ' ; o r 
a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o s t r i k e t h e r e f r o m a l l a l l e g a t i o n s which make 
any r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Alabama R u l e s o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Conduct." 
S t a l l i n g s 
f i l e d 
a 
c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t 
R o b e r t s , 
s e e k i n g 
$457,500 on e i g h t open-account c l a i m s . 
R o b e r t s opposed the 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' motion t o d i s m i s s and moved the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o d i s m i s s S t a l l i n g s ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m . On August 7, 2009, 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
d e n i e d 
R o b e r t s ' s 
motion 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
S t a l l i n g s ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m and g r a n t e d the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' 
motion t o s t r i k e " a l l a l l e g a t i o n s o f [ R o b e r t s ' s ] F i r s t Amended 
C o m p l a i n t which i n v o k e o r a l l e g e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e R u l e s o f 
P r o f e s s i o n a l Conduct." 
The c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t 
R o b e r t s ' s r e q u e s t f o r 
a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment as t o L a n i e r ' s 
5See s u p r a note 1. 
8 
1100045 
a l l e g e d u n a u t h o r i z e d p r a c t i c e o f law 
was s e v e r e d and would be 
c o n s i d e r e d i n a s e p a r a t e bench 
t r i a l . 
On August 18, 2009, R o b e r t s moved t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r 
a p a r t i a l summary judgment a g a i n s t t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s . 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n . S t a l l i n g s moved the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o d i s m i s s 
h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a g a i n s t 
R o b e r t s . 
The 
c o u n t e r c l a i m was d i s m i s s e d on A p r i l 6, 2010. 
On May 4, 2010, R o b e r t s f i l e d a second amended c o m p l a i n t , 
r e a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s from t h e f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t , i n c l u d i n g 
those t h a t had been d i s m i s s e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s August 7 
o r d e r . 
R o b e r t s a l s o added a f r a u d c l a i m a g a i n s t L a n i e r and a 
m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t S t a l l i n g s w i t h r e g a r d t o 
h i s 
e a r l i e r 
c o u n t e r c l a i m . 
The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s moved t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o 
s t r i k e 
the a l l e g a t i o n s i n 
the second amended c o m p l a i n t t h a t i n v o l v e d 
a l l e g e d 
v i o l a t i o n s 
o f t h e Alabama 
R u l e s 
o f P r o f e s s i o n a l 
C o n d u c t . The c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n . R o b e r t s t h e n 
moved t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o c l a r i f y i t s o r d e r , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e 
o r d e r 
s t r u c k m a t t e r s 
t h a t d i d not r e f e r t o t h e R u l e s o f 
P r o f e s s i o n a l 
Conduct, 
i n c l u d i n g R o b e r t s ' s 
r e q u e s t 
f o r a 
judgment 
d e c l a r i n g 
t h a t 
"the ' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r ' 
9 
1100045 
language 
o f 
Defendant 
L a n i e r ' s 
employment 
c o n t r a c t 
i s 
u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and a g a i n s t 
t h e p u b l i c 
p o l i c y and law i n 
Alabama" and t h a t 
L a n i e r had engaged i n t h e 
u n a u t h o r i z e d 
p r a c t i c e 
o f l a w . 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
an 
o r d e r , 
p u r p o r t i n g t o c l a r i f y i t s e a r l i e r o r d e r , s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t 
p a r t : 
" I t i s t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g 
o f t h e C o u r t t h a t a l l 
t o r t and common law c l a i m s a r e r e c a s t 
i n t o [ t h e 
Alabama L e g a l S e r v i c e s 
L i a b i l i t y A c t , § 6-5-570 e t  
seq., A l a . Code 1975 ('ALSLA'),] and [ i t i s ] 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f ' s burden t o show a b r e a c h o f t h e s t a n d a r d 
of 
[ c a r e ] . 
A l s o , t h a t ... [§] 6-5-578[, A l a . 
Code 
1975,] p r o h i b i t s t h e r e f e r e n c i n g o f t h e Code o f 
P r o f e s s i o n a l Conduct." 
S t a l l i n g s 
moved 
t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
t h e 
m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon 
w h i c h 
r e l i e f 
c o u l d 
be 
g r a n t e d . 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
c o n d i t i o n a l l y g r a n t e d t h e 
m o t i o n , and R o b e r t s has not a p p e a l e d 
t h a t d e c i s i o n . Coggin a l s o moved t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o d i s m i s s 
the second amended c o m p l a i n t as t o i t 
f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a 
c l a i m a g a i n s t i t . 
The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s , S t a l l i n g s , and Coggin each moved 
f o r a summary judgment. 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
g r a n t e d 
t h o s e 
motions on J u l y 23, 2010, and e n t e r e d summary judgments i n 
f a v o r o f t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s , S t a l l i n g s , and Coggin "on a l l 
[ s u b s t i t u t e d p. 10] 
1100045 
c l a i m s " b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them. 
The c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o 
found 
t h a t , " [ b ] y v i r t u e o f summary judgments h a v i n g been g r a n t e d i n 
f a v o r o f a l l d e f e n d a n t s , t h e C o u r t deems a l l o t h e r 
p e n d i n g 
motions t o be MOOT." The c i r c u i t c o u r t went on t o s t a t e : 
"No 
s p e c i f i c r e l i e f h a v i n g been sought a g a i n s t t h e Alabama S t a t e 
B a r , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t a l l 
c l a i m s p e n d i n g between and among 
the r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s a r e f u l l y r e s o l v e d , and t h i s Judgment 
i s FINAL as t o a l l c l a i m s and p a r t i e s . " 
( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n 
o r i g i n a l . ) 
On J u l y 30, 2009, Judge H a l l r e s i g n e d from t h e bench, and 
r e t i r e d C i r c u i t Judge Samuel H. Monk was a p p o i n t e d t o p r e s i d e 
over t h e c a s e . 
R o b e r t s moved t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o a l t e r , 
amend, o r v a c a t e t h e J u l y 23 summary judgments. 
Judge Monk 
d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n . 
R o b e r t s now a p p e a l s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d 
i n 
e n t e r i n g summary 
judgments 
i n f a v o r 
o f t h e L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s , 
S t a l l i n g s , and Coggin. 
She a l s o argues t h a t t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h e r r e q u e s t f o r a 
j u d i c i a l 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o whether 
t h e 
n o n r e f u n d a b l e -
r e t a i n e r 
language 
i n t h e c o n t r a c t was u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and 
11 
1100045 
a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y and as t o whether L a n i e r had engaged i n 
the u n a u t h o r i z e d 
p r a c t i c e of 
law. 
S t a n d a r d of Review 
" T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w of a summary judgment i s de 
novo. 
We 
a p p l y 
the same s t a n d a r d 
of r e v i e w as 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a p p l i e d . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
we 
must 
d e t e r m i n e whether the movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e 
showing 
t h a t 
no 
genuine 
i s s u e 
of 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
e x i s t s and t h a t the movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment 
as a m a t t e r of law. 
I n making such a 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n , 
we 
must 
r e v i e w 
the 
e v i d e n c e 
i n 
the 
l i g h t 
most 
f a v o r a b l e 
t o the nonmovant. 
Once the movant makes 
a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e 
of 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t , 
the 
burden then 
s h i f t s 
t o 
the 
nonmovant t o produce 
' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as 
t o 
the e x i s t e n c e 
of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l 
f a c t . 
' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e of such w e i g h t 
and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n the 
e x e r c i s e 
of 
i m p a r t i a l judgment 
can 
r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r 
the 
e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . ' " 
Dow 
v. Alabama D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , 
897 
So. 
2d 
1035, 
1038-39 
( A l a . 2004) 
( q u o t i n g West v. 
Founders 
L i f e 
A s s u r . 
Co. 
of 
F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 
871 
( A l a . 1989) 
( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . 
A n a l y s i s 
I . The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s 
R o b e r t s 
f i r s t 
argues 
t h a t 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
i n 
e n t e r i n g a summary judgment i n f a v o r of the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s . 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
d i d not 
s t a t e the 
b a s i s 
f o r i t s summary 
judgment i n the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' f a v o r . 
However, R o b e r t s 
12 
1100045 
argues 
t h a t 
none 
of 
the 
grounds 
argued 
i n 
the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment s u p p o r t s the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s judgment. 
In 
t h e i r 
m o t i o n , 
the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s 
argued 
t h a t 
R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s are governed by the Alabama L e g a l 
S e r v i c e s 
L i a b i l i t y 
A c t , 
§ 6-5-570 
e t 
seq., 
A l a . Code 
1975 
("the 
ALSLA"), and t h a t R o b e r t s had 
f a i l e d t o prove a v i o l a t i o n of 
the ALSLA because she had not p r e s e n t e d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y as t o 
the a l l e g e d b r e a c h of the a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d of c a r e , nor 
had 
she shown t h a t , but f o r L a n i e r ' s a c t i o n s , the outcome of her 
case would have been d i f f e r e n t . 
The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s a l s o 
argued t h a t R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t them were b a r r e d by 
the 
ALSLA's two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s and t h a t R o b e r t s 
had 
not d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t she had s u f f e r e d any i n j u r y as a 
r e s u l t 
of L a n i e r ' s a c t i o n s . 
We 
f i r s t a d d r e s s whether the ALSLA a p p l i e s t o the 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s . 
S e c t i o n 6-5-573, A l a . Code 
1973, 
p r o v i d e s : "There s h a l l be 
o n l y one 
form and cause 
of 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s i n c o u r t s i n the S t a t e 
of Alabama 
and 
i t s h a l l 
be 
known 
as 
the 
l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
13 
1100045 
l i a b i l i t y 
a c t i o n 
and 
s h a l l 
have t h e meaning as 
d e f i n e d 
h e r e i n . " 
S e c t i o n 
6-5-572(2), A l a . 
Code 1975, d e f i n e s 
a " l e g a l 
s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r " as 
"[a]nyone l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law by t h e S t a t e o f 
Alabama o r engaged i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f law i n 
t h e 
S t a t e o f Alabama. 
The term l e g a l s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r 
i n c l u d e s 
p r o f e s s i o n a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , 
a s s o c i a t i o n s , 
and 
p a r t n e r s h i p s 
and members o f such 
p r o f e s s i o n a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , a s s o c i a t i o n s , and p a r t n e r s h i p s and 
t h e 
p e r s o n s , f i r m s , o r c o r p o r a t i o n s 
e i t h e r employed by 
or p e r f o r m i n g work o r s e r v i c e s f o r 
t h e b e n e f i t o f 
such p r o f e s s i o n a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , 
a s s o c i a t i o n s , and 
p a r t n e r s h i p s 
i n c l u d i n g , 
w i t h o u t 
l i m i t a t i o n , 
law 
c l e r k s , 
l e g a l 
a s s i s t a n t s , 
l e g a l 
s e c r e t a r i e s , 
i n v e s t i g a t o r s , p a r a l e g a l s , and c o u r i e r s . " 
S e c t i o n 
6-5-572(1), 
A l a . Code 
1975, d e f i n e s 
" l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n " as 
" [ a ] n y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r i n 
w h i c h i t 
i s a l l e g e d t h a t some i n j u r y o r damage was 
caused i n whole o r i n p a r t by t h e l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r ' s 
v i o l a t i o n o f t h e 
s t a n d a r d 
o f 
c a r e 
a p p l i c a b l e t o a l e g a l s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r . 
A l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
l i a b i l i t y 
a c t i o n embraces 
a l l c l a i m s f o r 
i n j u r i e s o r damage[] o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h whether i n 
c o n t r a c t 
o r i n 
t o r t 
and whether 
based 
on an 
i n t e n t i o n a l o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l a c t o r o m i s s i o n . 
A 
l e g a l s e r v i c e s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n embraces any form o f 
a c t i o n i n w h i c h a l i t i g a n t may seek l e g a l 
r e d r e s s 
f o r a wrong o r an i n j u r y and e v e r y l e g a l t h e o r y o f 
r e c o v e r y , whether common law 
o r s t a t u t o r y , a v a i l a b l e 
t o a l i t i g a n t i n 
a c o u r t i n 
t h e S t a t e o f Alabama now 
or i n 
t h e f u t u r e . " 
14 
1100045 
R o b e r t s argues t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h i s C o u r t ' s 
r a t i o n a l e 
i n F o g a r t y v. P a r k e r , Poe, 
Adams & B e r n s t e i n , L.L.P., 961 
So. 
2d 784 ( A l a . 2006), L a n i e r was n o t 
a " l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r " 
under t h e 
ALSLA because he was n o t l i c e n s e d t o 
p r a c t i c e law i n 
Alabama. 
T h e r e f o r e , she a r g u e s , t h e 
ALSLA does n o t a p p l y t o 
her c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s . 
I n r e s p o n s e , t h e 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s argue t h a t F o g a r t y i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e and 
t h a t t h e ALSLA a p p l i e s because L a n i e r was a d m i t t e d p r o 
hac 
 
v i c e t o p r a c t i c e i n 
Alabama. 
T h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d s i m i l a r i s s u e s i n 
Wachovia 
 
Bank, N.A. v. Jones, M o r r i s o n & Womack, P.C., 42 So. 3d 667 
( A l a . 
2009). 
I n t h a t case, Wachovia Bank ("Wachovia"), which 
was b e i n g sued by N e a l Greene, f i l e d a t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t , among o t h e r s , Jones, M o r r i s o n & 
Womack, P.C. ("Jones 
M o r r i s o n " ) , a l l e g i n g c l a i m s under t h e 
ALSLA. The t r i a l c o u r t 
e n t e r e d a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f Jones 
M o r r i s o n on 
Wachovia's t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s 
r e v e r s e d t h e judgment and remanded t h e case t o t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
S o u t h T r u s t Bank v. Jones, M o r r i s o n , Womack & D e a r i n g , 
P.C., 
939 So. 2d 885 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005). On remand, t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment as a m a t t e r o f law i n Jones 
15 
1100045 
M o r r i s o n ' s f a v o r , s t a t i n g t h a t "the 
Bank had f a i l e d t o prove 
by e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d s o f care and t h a t 
the l a w y e r s had a l l e g e d l y b r e a c h e d t h o s e s t a n d a r d s o f c a r e . " 
Wachovia, 42 So. 3d a t 673-74. 
Wachovia a p p e a l e d . 
On a p p e a l , 
Jones M o r r i s o n , 
among o t h e r 
t h i n g s , 
argued 
t h a t i t was n o t s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y under t h e 
ALSLA "because 
i t s a t t o r n e y s were n o t l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n 
Alabama" and, 
t h e r e f o r e , 
" i t 
was n o t a c t i n g as a ' l e g a l s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r ' 
under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h [ a t ] c a s e . " 
Wachovia, 42 So. 3d 
a t 675. 
Jones M o r r i s o n 
c i t e d 
F o g a r t y i n s u p p o r t o f i t s 
argument. 
I n Wachovia, we d i s c u s s e d our d e c i s i o n i n F o g a r t y , 
n o t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l e e s i n t h a t case — 
P a r k e r , Poe, Adams 
& B e r n s t e i n , L.L.P. ("Parker Poe") -- had argued, among o t h e r 
t h i n g s , 
t h a t t h e F o g a r t y s ' 
c l a i m s 
s h o u l d have been b r o u g h t 
under t h e ALSLA because, 
a c c o r d i n g 
t o P a r k e r 
Poe, i t was 
engaged i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f law i n Alabama. We went on t o 
s t a t e : 
" I n r e j e c t i n g P a r k e r Poe's argument t h a t i t was 
'engaged i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f law i n t h e S t a t e o f 
Alabama,' t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
" ' F u r t h e r m o r e , 
i t appears 
t h a t t h e 
ALSLA a p p l i e s 
o n l y t o a t t o r n e y s who a r e 
l i c e n s e d 
t o 
p r a c t i c e 
law i n Alabama. 
P a r k e r Poe argues t h a t i t 
was "engaged i n 
16 
1100045 
the 
p r a c t i c e 
of 
law 
i n 
the 
S t a t e 
of 
Alabama" and, t h u s , f a l l s under the second 
prong of the ALSLA's d e f i n i t i o n of a l e g a l -
s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r . 
However, t h i s C o u r t 
has 
e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t " [ t ] h e p l a i n language 
of § 6-5-572(2), as w e l l as t h a t of 
the 
o t h e r 
p o r t i o n s 
of 
the 
ALSLA, 
c l e a r l y 
i n d i c a t e s t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e 
i n t e n d e d f o r 
the ALSLA t o a p p l y o n l y t o l a w y e r s and 
t o 
e n t i t i e s t h a t are composed of members 
who 
a r e 
l i c e n s e d 
t o p r a c t i c e 
law 
w i t h i n 
the 
S t a t e of Alabama." 
Alabama Educ. Ass'n v.  
N e l s o n , 
770 So. 2d 1057, 
1059 
( A l a . 2000) 
(emphasis added). 
" ' A c c o r d i n g 
t o the 
c o m p l a i n t , 
Jones 
and 
B a r o n [ , 
two 
a t t o r n e y s 
employed 
by 
P a r k e r Poe,] were not l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e 
law w i t h i n the S t a t e of Alabama, and P a r k e r 
Poe 
does 
not 
d i s p u t e 
t h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n . 
Thus, 
the ALSLA would not 
a p p l y 
t o 
the 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t P a r k e r Poe, 
and 
the ALSLA 
c o u l d 
not 
be 
the 
F o g a r t y s ' 
e x c l u s i v e 
remedy. ... ' 
"961 
So. 2d a t 
789. 
"We 
d i s a g r e e w i t h Jones M o r r i s o n ' s 
c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t under 
... 
F o g a r t y 
i t cannot be 
h e l d 
l i a b l e 
under the ALSLA because none of i t s a t t o r n e y s were 
l i c e n s e d 
t o 
p r a c t i c e 
law 
w i t h i n 
the 
S t a t e 
of 
Alabama. 
F i r s t , u n l i k e ... 
P a r k e r Poe i n F o g a r t y , 
Jones 
M o r r i s o n 
does 
not 
d i s p u t e 
t h a t 
i t 
was 
p r o v i d i n g l e g a l s e r v i c e s t o the Bank i n the p r e s e n t 
case. 
... 
"Second, t o p r o v i d e t h o s e l e g a l s e r v i c e s t o the 
Bank, Jones M o r r i s o n i n the p r e s e n t case agreed 
t o 
p e r f o r m 
work 
or 
s e r v i c e s 
-- 
such 
as 
r e l a y i n g 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
between 
[ S t o k e s , 
C l i n t o n , 
F l e m i n g 
& 
S h e r l i n g ('Stokes C l i n t o n ' ) ] and the Bank r e g a r d i n g 
the 
l e g a l 
a c t i o n t o 
c o l l e c t 
the debt -- 
f o r 
the 
17 
1100045 
b e n e f i t of the Stokes C l i n t o n f i r m i n i t s r e n d e r i n g 
of l e g a l s e r v i c e s 
t o the Bank. 
Stokes C l i n t o n , 
as 
n o t e d , i s a l e g a l - s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r under the ALSLA. 
Thus, 
u n l i k e 
F o g a r t y , 
i n 
the 
p r e s e n t 
case 
an 
a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t 
r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between Jones 
M o r r i s o n 
and 
the 
Bank, 
and 
i n 
o f f e r i n g 
l e g a l 
s e r v i c e s 
t o 
the 
Bank, Jones M o r r i s o n 
sought 
the 
a s s i s t a n c e 
of Stokes C l i n t o n and a g r e e d t o p e r f o r m 
work 
f o r 
the 
b e n e f i t 
of Stokes C l i n t o n , 
i t s e l f 
' l e g a l - s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r ' 
under 
the 
ALSL 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , the q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case 
whether 
the 
ALSLA 
a p p l i e s 
t o 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
a t t o r n e y not l i c e n s e d i n Alabama who, 
i n 
c o n j u n c t i o n 
w i t h 
an 
a t t o r n e y 
l i c e n s e d 
t o p r a c t i c e 
i n Alabama, 
p e r f o r m s l e g a l s e r v i c e s 
i n Alabama f o r a c l i e n t 
-¬
was 
not 
a t 
i s s u e 
i n F o g a r t y 
.... 
Thus, 
t o 
the 
e x t e n t t h a t language i n F o g a r t y 
. 
s u g g e s t s 
t h a t 
the ALSLA c o u l d not a p p l y i n such a s c e n a r i o , 
t h a t 
language was u n n e c e s s a r y t o the h o l d i n g [ ] 
i n F o g a r t y 
and 
i s not 
c o n t r o l l i n g h e r e . " 
a 
ALSLA. 
an 
Wachovia, 42 So. 
3d a t 677-78. 
We went on t o c o n c l u d e : 
"Stokes C l i n t o n i s a ' l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' 
under 
§ 
6-5-572(2) 
of 
the 
ALSLA 
because 
i t 
i s 
a 
' p r o f e s s i o n a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n [ ] , 
a s s o c i a t i o n [ ] , 
[or] 
p a r t n e r s h i p [ ] ' t h a t i s ' l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law 
by 
the 
S t a t e 
of Alabama or engaged i n the p r a c t i c e 
of 
law 
i n 
the 
S t a t e 
of Alabama.' 
In 
view 
of 
i t s 
arrangement 
w i t h 
the 
Stokes 
C l i n t o n 
f i r m , 
Jones 
M o r r i s o n meets 
t h a t 
p a r t 
of 
the 
d e f i n i t i o n of 
a 
' l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' t h a t i n c l u d e s 
'the p e r s o n s , 
f i r m s , 
or 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
e i t h e r 
employed 
by 
or 
p e r f o r m i n g work or s e r v i c e s f o r the b e n e f i t of such 
p r o f e s s i o n a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , 
a s s o c i a t i o n s , 
and 
p a r t n e r s h i p s 
i n c l u d i n g , 
w i t h o u t 
l i m i t a t i o n , 
law 
c l e r k s , 
l e g a l 
a s s i s t a n t s , 
l e g a l 
s e c r e t a r i e s , 
i n v e s t i g a t o r s , p a r a l e g a l s , 
and 
c o u r i e r s ' 
(emphasis 
added). 
"The 
Bank's a b o v e - s t a t e d c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
Jones 
M o r r i s o n 
a r i s e 
out 
of 
the 
a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t 
18 
1100045 
r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t e d between Jones M o r r i s o n 
and 
the Bank and 
out of Jones M o r r i s o n ' s 
p r o v i s i o n of 
l e g a l s e r v i c e s t o the Bank. 
Thus, the ALSLA governs 
the Bank's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Jones M o r r i s o n . " 
Wachovia, 42 So. 3d a t 678-79 ( f o o t n o t e 
o m i t t e d ) . 
The 
p o s i t i o n of the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s case i s 
v e r y s i m i l a r t o the p o s i t i o n of Jones M o r r i s o n i n Wachovia. I t 
i s 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t 
R o b e r t s ' s 
" c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
[the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ] a r i s e out of the a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t 
r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t 
e x i s t e d between [the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ] and 
[Roberts] and 
out 
of 
[the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' ] p r o v i s i o n of 
l e g a l s e r v i c e s t o 
[ R o b e r t s ] . " 
Wachovia, 42 So. 3d a t 
678. 
Moreover, L a n i e r a s s o c i a t e d S t a l l i n g s t o a s s i s t him 
i n 
r e p r e s e n t i n g R o b e r t s . 
S t a l l i n g s i s l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law 
i n Alabama and i s , t h e r e f o r e , a l e g a l - s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r under 
the ALSLA. 
L a n i e r ' s b i l l i n g s t a t e m e n t s , w h i c h are 
u n d i s p u t e d , 
show t h a t , u n t i l h i s w i t h d r a w a l 
i n March 2007, L a n i e r worked 
w i t h S t a l l i n g s i n r e p r e s e n t i n g R o b e r t s on the p e n d i n g c r i m i n a l 
charge. 
The 
s t a t e m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t , among o t h e r 
t h i n g s , 
L a n i e r p e r f o r m e d l e g a l r e s e a r c h , p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n s 
f o r 
the 
p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g 
i n the 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t 
on 
the 
n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
c h a r g e , and 
r e v i e w e d 
v a r i o u s motions 
and 
o t h e r paperwork p r e p a r e d 
by 
S t a l l i n g s . 
19 
1100045 
The 
q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d 
i n t h i s case, as i n Wachovia, i s 
"whether the ALSLA a p p l i e s t o c l a i m s a g a i n s t an a t t o r n e y 
not 
l i c e n s e d 
i n Alabama who, 
i n c o n j u n c t i o n 
w i t h 
an 
a t t o r n e y 
l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n Alabama, p e r f o r m s l e g a l s e r v i c e s i n 
Alabama f o r a c l i e n t . " 
Wachovia, 42 So. 3d a t 677-78. 
As 
we 
n o t e d 
i n Wachovia, 
t h i s 
q u e s t i o n 
"was 
not 
a t 
i s s u e 
i n 
F o g a r t y , " and, " [ t ] h u s , t o the e x t e n t t h a t language i n F o g a r t y 
... 
s u g g e s t s 
t h a t 
the 
ALSLA 
c o u l d 
not 
a p p l y 
i n 
such 
a 
s c e n a r i o , t h a t language was 
u n n e c e s s a r y t o the h o l d i n g [ ] 
i n 
F o g a r t y 
... 
and i s not c o n t r o l l i n g h e r e . " 
42 So. 3d a t 
678. 
We c o n c l u d e t h a t L a n i e r , l i k e Jones M o r r i s o n i n Wachovia, 
"meets 
t h a t 
p a r t 
of 
the 
d e f i n i t i o n 
of 
a 
' l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r ' t h a t i n c l u d e s 
'the p e r s o n s , f i r m s , or 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
e i t h e r employed by 
or p e r f o r m i n g 
work or 
s e r v i c e s f o r 
the 
 
b e n e f i t 
o f ' " 
a 
l e g a l - s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r 
under 
the 
ALSLA. 
Wachovia, 42 
So. 
3d 
a t 
678. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the ALSLA governs 
R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s .
6 
6The L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argue t h a t R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t them f a l l w i t h i n the scope of the ALSLA because L a n i e r 
was 
a d m i t t e d 
p r o 
hac 
v i c e i n August 2006. 
I t seems c l e a r 
t h a t , a f t e r he o b t a i n e d p r o hac v i c e s t a t u s , L a n i e r 
q u a l i f i e d 
as 
a 
" l e g a l - s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r " 
under 
the ALSLA. 
However, 
R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m s a r i s e out of a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t t h a t i s s a i d 
t o 
have 
o c c u r r e d 
b e f o r e 
L a n i e r 
o b t a i n e d 
such 
s t a t u s . 
20 
1100045 
H a v i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the ALSLA a p p l i e s t o the 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
the 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s , we 
now 
a d d r e s s whether 
the 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s were e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment on t h o s e 
c l a i m s . 
In her second amended c o m p l a i n t , 
R o b e r t s sought a 
judgment 
d e c l a r i n g 
t h a t , 
among 
o t h e r 
t h i n g s , 
the 
n o n r e f u n d a b l e - r e t a i n e r 
language 
i n 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
was 
u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and t h a t L a n i e r had engaged i n the 
u n a u t h o r i z e d 
p r a c t i c e of law; she a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t L a n i e r 
had 
"breached h i s d u t y of c a r e t o R o b e r t s i n : 
"(a) 
m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g 
t o R o b e r t s 
t h a t 
he was 
q u a l i f i e d t o r e p r e s e n t 
her 
i n 
the 
S t a t e 
o f Alabama on 
the p e n d i n g c r i m i n a l 
charge; 
"(b) d e c e i v i n g R o b e r t s i n t o 
e x e c u t i n g 
a 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r ' 
employment 
c o n t r a c t under the p r e t e n s e t h a t such 
an 
agreement was 
v a l i d and l a w f u l ; 
" [ ( c ) ] m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g t o R o b e r t s t h a t 
under 
no 
c i r c u m s t a n c e , 
even 
i f he 
were 
t e r m i n a t e d , would R o b e r t s be e n t i t l e d t o a 
r e f u n d 
of 
f e e s 
because 
the 
r e t a i n e r 
of 
$50,000 was 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' ; 
and 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
because 
we 
have 
h e l d 
t h a t 
R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
the 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s are 
o t h e r w i s e 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
the 
ALSLA, we need not c o n s i d e r what, i f any, 
r e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t 
L a n i e r ' s p r o hac v i c e a d m i s s i o n had 
on the 
a p p l i c a b i l i t y 
of 
the ALSLA t o R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m s . 
21 
1100045 
" [ ( d ) ] 
c o n v e r t i n g 
funds b e l o n g i n g 
t o 
R o b e r t s , 
i n 
the 
a p p r o x i m a t e 
sum 
of 
$50,000.00, t o h i s own 
p e r s o n a l 
use." 
R o b e r t s argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g 
her 
r e q u e s t 
f o r 
a 
judgment 
d e c l a r i n g 
whether 
the 
"non-
r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r " 
language 
i n 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
was 
u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and a g a i n s t Alabama p u b l i c p o l i c y and whether 
L a n i e r 
had 
engaged 
i n 
the 
u n l a w f u l 
p r a c t i c e 
of 
law 
i n 
Alabama.
7 
The 
f i r s t 
i s s u e 
i s moot i n l i g h t 
of 
the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
c o n c e s s i o n s 
t h a t 
the 
" n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r " 
language i s p r o h i b i t e d under Alabama law and t h a t the 
c o n t r a c t 
was 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e as w r i t t e n . 
The 
second i s s u e -- 
whether 
L a n i e r ' s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d the u n a u t h o r i z e d 
p r a c t i c e of 
law 
-- i s b a r r e d by the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i n the ALSLA.
8 
S e c t i o n 
6-5-574(a), 
A l a . 
Code 
1975, 
p r o v i d e s , 
i n 
p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
7 R o b e r t s a l s o r e q u e s t e d a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t 
L a n i e r 
had 
v i o l a t e d s e v e r a l 
of 
the Alabama R u l e s 
of 
P r o f e s s i o n a l 
Conduct and t h a t the c o n t r a c t was 
v o i d because L a n i e r was 
not 
l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law i n Alabama a t the time the 
c o n t r a c t 
was e x e c u t e d . 
R o b e r t s has not r a i s e d t h e s e i s s u e s on 
a p p e a l ; 
t h e r e f o r e , we do not a d d r e s s them. 
8 R o b e r t s concedes t h a t " [ i ] f 
the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s were 
s u b j e c t t o the ALSLA, [then t h i s ] c l a i m would be subsumed i n t o 
the ALSLA." 
R o b e r t s ' s r e p l y b r i e f , a t 
13. 
22 
1100045 
" A l l l e g a l s e r v i c e l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n s a g a i n s t a l e g a l 
s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r must be commenced w i t h i n two y e a r s 
a f t e r t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n or f a i l u r e g i v i n g r i s e t o 
the c l a i m , and n o t a f t e r w a r d s ; p r o v i d e d , t h a t i f 
the 
cause o f a c t i o n i s not d i s c o v e r e d 
and c o u l d not 
r e a s o n a b l y have been d i s c o v e r e d w i t h i n such p e r i o d , 
then t h e a c t i o n may be commenced w i t h i n s i x months 
from t h e date o f such 
d i s c o v e r y 
o r t h e date o f 
d i s c o v e r y o f f a c t s w h i c h would r e a s o n a b l y 
l e a d t o 
such d i s c o v e r y , w h i c h e v e r i s e a r l i e r 
" 
The a c t o r o m i s s i o n g i v i n g r i s e t o R o b e r t s ' s r e q u e s t f o r 
a 
j u d i c i a l 
d e c l a r a t i o n 
t h a t 
L a n i e r 
had 
engaged 
i n the 
u n a u t h o r i z e d 
p r a c t i c e o f law o c c u r r e d upon t h e e x e c u t i o n of 
the c o n t r a c t i n A p r i l 2006, and R o b e r t s says t h a t she l e a r n e d 
on A p r i l 27, 2006, t h a t L a n i e r was not l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e 
law i n Alabama. However, R o b e r t s d i d not 
f i l e t h e 
p r e s e n t 
a c t i o n u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2009, w e l l a f t e r the two-year s t a t u t e of 
l i m i t a t i o n s had e x p i r e d . 
For t h e s e r e a s o n s , we 
a f f i r m t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' f a v o r w i t h 
r e g a r d t o t h e r e q u e s t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. 
R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m t h a t L a n i e r b r e a c h e d the s t a n d a r d of c a r e 
by m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g t o h e r t h a t he was q u a l i f i e d t o 
r e p r e s e n t 
her i n Alabama on t h e n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r charge i s a l s o b a r r e d 
by 
t h e 
ALSLA's 
s t a t u t e 
of 
l i m i t a t i o n s . 
T h i s 
a l l e g e d 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
t o o k p l a c e i n A p r i l 2006 when t h e c o n t r a c t 
was e x e c u t e d . By h e r own a d m i s s i o n , 
R o b e r t s knew by May 2006 
23 
1100045 
t h a t L a n i e r was 
not l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law i n Alabama, t h a t 
L a n i e r had a s s o c i a t e d S t a l l i n g s as l o c a l c o u n s e l , and t h a t she 
would have t o e x e c u t e a s e p a r a t e fee agreement w i t h 
S t a l l i n g s . 
Thus, the two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s had e x p i r e d 
b e f o r e 
F e b r u a r y 2009 w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s c l a i m , and we 
a f f i r m 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s summary judgment i n the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
f a v o r as t o t h i s c l a i m . 
The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s argued i n t h e i r summary-judgment 
m o t i o n t h a t R o b e r t s ' s r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s -- t h a t L a n i e r 
d e c e i v e d 
her 
i n t o 
e x e c u t i n g 
the 
i n v a l i d 
c o n t r a c t , 
t h a t 
he 
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o R o b e r t s t h a t she would not be 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
any 
r e f u n d 
of 
the 
r e t a i n e r 
fee 
i f 
she 
t e r m i n a t e d 
h i s 
employment, and 
t h a t he 
c o n v e r t e d 
R o b e r t s ' s funds 
f o r h i s 
p e r s o n a l 
use 
-- 
were 
a l s o 
b a r r e d 
by 
the 
s t a t u t e 
of 
l i m i t a t i o n s . 
However, R o b e r t s argues t h a t 
" t h e [ s e ] 
c l a i m s 
have been t i m e l y f i l e d under the ' s a v i n g p r o v i s i o n ' c o n t a i n e d 
i n § 6-5-574." 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 53-54. 
As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , the two-year s t a t u t e of 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
i n § 6-5-574(a) g e n e r a l l y b e g i n s t o run 
a t the time of 
the 
a c t , o m i s s i o n , 
or f a i l u r e g i v i n g r i s e t o the c l a i m . 
As 
w i t h 
the 
p r i o r 
c l a i m s , 
the 
a c t s 
or 
o m i s s i o n s 
u n d e r l y i n g 
the 
24 
1100045 
r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s o c c u r r e d i n A p r i l and May 2006, more than two 
y e a r s b e f o r e R o b e r t s f i l e d s u i t . 
R o b e r t s and L a n i e r e x e c u t e d 
the c o n t r a c t on 
A p r i l 
21, 2006. 
A few days 
l a t e r , L a n i e r 
w i t h d r e w $50,000 from R o b e r t s ' s bank a c c o u n t s and, a c c o r d i n g 
t o L a n i e r ' s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y , d e p o s i t e d the money i n the 
f i r m ' s bank a c c o u n t . 
A c c o r d i n g t o R o b e r t s , L a n i e r t o l d her on 
May 1, 2006, t h a t , even i f she t e r m i n a t e d h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , 
she would not e n t i t l e d t o a r e f u n d of any p a r t of the $50,000, 
which he s a i d was a " n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r . " 
However, § 6-5-574(a) a l s o p r o v i d e s " t h a t i f the cause o f 
a c t i o n i s not d i s c o v e r e d and c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y have been 
d i s c o v e r e d w i t h i n [the two-year l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d ] , t h e n the 
a c t i o n may 
be commenced w i t h i n s i x months from the date of 
such d i s c o v e r y or the date of d i s c o v e r y o f f a c t s which 
would 
r e a s o n a b l y 
l e a d t o such d i s c o v e r y , w h i c h e v e r 
i s 
e a r l i e r . " 
R o b e r t s argues t h a t she l e a r n e d f o r the f i r s t time on F e b r u a r y 
15, 2009, t h a t the " n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r " language o f the 
c o n t r a c t was u n l a w f u l i n Alabama and t h a t L a n i e r ' s r e l i a n c e on 
t h a t language i n r e f u s i n g t o r e f u n d t o her any of the r e t a i n e r 
was 
improper. 
She 
f i l e d her 
o r i g i n a l 
c o m p l a i n t t h r e e days 
l a t e r . 
25 
1100045 
R o b e r t s a l s o argues t h a t she "had no r e a s o n t o know o f 
the m i s c o n d u c t committed by L a n i e r nor c o u l d t h e m i s c o n d u c t 
r e a s o n a b l y have been d i s c o v e r e d p r i o r t o [ F e b r u a r y 15, 2009]." 
R o b e r t s ' s 
b r i e f , 
a t 54-55. 
We 
have 
found no 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t R o b e r t s was aware 
t h a t t h e n o n r e f u n d a b l e -
r e t a i n e r language was u n e n f o r c e a b l e 
b e f o r e F e b r u a r y 15, 2009. 
Of c o u r s e , when a p a r t y a c t u a l l y d i s c o v e r e d o r s h o u l d have 
d i s c o v e r e d 
an 
a l l e g e d 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
i s g e n e r a l l y 
a 
q u e s t i o n f o r 
t h e j u r y . See Jones v. A l f a Mut. I n s . Co., 1 So. 
3d 23, 31 ( A l a . 
2008) 
. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
i t appears 
t h a t t h e 
r e m a i n i n g 
c l a i m s may f a l l w i t h i n t h e s a v i n g s p r o v i s i o n o f § 6-
5-574(a) and a r e n o t b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s as 
a m a t t e r o f 
law. 
The L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s argue t h a t t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f 
o r d i n a r y 
d i l i g e n c e 
R o b e r t s 
c o u l d 
have 
d i s c o v e r e d 
t h e s e 
r e m a i n i n g 
c l a i m s b e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
e x p i r e d . 
They argue t h a t R o b e r t s c o u l d have q u e s t i o n e d 
S t a l l i n g s , t h e 
d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t about L a n i e r ' s a l l e g e d 
s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e n o n r e f u n d a b l e - r e t a i n e r 
language i n 
t h e c o n t r a c t . However, t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s have 
not 
d i r e c t e d 
t h i s 
C o u r t t o any e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
26 
1100045 
R o b e r t s had, b e f o r e 
F e b r u a r y 15, 2009, any r e a s o n t o doubt 
L a n i e r ' s 
a l l e g e d 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
t h a t 
t h e n o n r e f u n d a b l e -
r e t a i n e r language i n 
t h e c o n t r a c t was v a l i d and t h a t , because 
of t h a t language, she would not 
be e n t i t l e d t o 
a r e f u n d i f 
she 
t e r m i n a t e d h i s employment. We cannot agree t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e 
of o r d i n a r y d i l i g e n c e r e q u i r e s a c l i e n t t o seek independent 
v e r i f i c a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by h i s 
o r h e r a t t o r n e y 
r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o r meaning o f terms i n an a t t o r n e y -
c l i e n t employment c o n t r a c t .
9 
9The L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argue t h a t R o b e r t s d e f e a t s h e r 
own c l a i m t h a t t h e a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t c o u l d n o t have been 
d i s c o v e r e d 
b e f o r e 
F e b r u a r y 2009 by a r g u i n g 
t h a t no 
e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y 
i s needed t o prove 
t h a t t h e L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s 
b r e a c h e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e . 
They argue: 
" [ R o b e r t s ] 
i n s i s t s t h a t ... no e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y i s 
needed t o prove t h e v i o l a t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e 
'non-
r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r ' c l a u s e , and 
o f L a n i e r ' s a l l e g e d 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , because any l a y 
j u r o r c o u l d make 
t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
w i t h o u t t h e need f o r 
an e x p e r t . 
... I n o t h e r words, 'anybody,' whether an a t t o r n e y 
or n o t , c o u l d 
t e l l 
r e a d i l y 
t h a t a n o n r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r 
c o n t r a c t , and an a l l e g a t i o n 
t h a t such a 
c o n t r a c t i s v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e , i s 
wrong. 
" I f t h a t i s 
t h e case, then 
[Roberts] 
(who has 
two 
degrees i n r a d i o l o g i c a l 
t e c h n i q u e s ) 
c e r t a i n l y 
s h o u l d have r e a l i z e d t h a t , o r s h o u l d have been p u t 
on i n q u i r y t o l o o k i n t o t h e m a t t e r f u r t h e r , a t 
t h e 
v e r y 
l e a s t ; and because o f t h e o b v i o u s n a t u r e o f 
t h i s 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
(by 
[ R o b e r t s ' s ] 
own 
c o n t e n t i o n s ) , she s h o u l d have known and r e a l i z e d t h e 
27 
1100045 
The 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argue t h a t R o b e r t s d i d 
not 
p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e showing t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o 
the b e n e f i t of the p r o v i s i o n of § 6-5-574(a) t h a t a l l o w s 
an 
o t h e r w i s e u n t i m e l y a c t i o n t o be f i l e d s i x months from the d a t e 
of d i s c o v e r y . 
However, the r e c o r d c o n t a i n s an 
a f f i d a v i t i n 
w h i c h R o b e r t s s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"Because I saw no need of h a v i n g two 
a t t o r n e y s 
on 
my 
case 
and 
i n c u r r i n g 
d o u b l e 
the 
expense 
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h two a t t o r n e y s , c o u p l e d w i t h the 
f a c t 
t h a t I 
f e l t L a n i e r had 
d e c e i v e d 
me 
i n t o r e t a i n i n g 
h i s 
s e r v i c e s , on 
or about May 
1, 2006, d u r i n g 
a 
m e e t i n g w i t h L a n i e r a t the Cherokee County 
J a i l , 
I 
t e r m i n a t e d 
L a n i e r 
and 
r e q u e s t e d 
a 
r e f u n d 
of 
the 
$50,000 p r e v i o u s l y 
t a k e n 
by 
L a n i e r 
as 
h i s 
'non-
r e f u n d a b l e ' r e t a i n e r . 
f a l s i t y 
of 
the 
s t a t e m e n t , 
j u s t 
as 
any 
l a y j u r o r 
c o u l d have, a c c o r d i n g 
t o h e r . 
Thus, not o n l y 
has 
she 
t e s t i f i e d h e r s e l f out of a cause of a c t i o n f o r 
f r a u d , she has d e s t r o y e d her o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e l y 
on 
the 
' s a v i n g s ' 
p r o v i s i o n s 
of 
the 
s t a t u t e s 
of 
l i m i t a t i o n s . 
She 
s h o u l d 
not 
be 
p e r m i t t e d 
t o 
use 
t h i s f e i g n e d ' i g n o r a n c e ' 
t o f u r t h e r her cause." 
The L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s ' 
b r i e f , a t 31-32. 
The 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
argument 
i s 
d i s i n g e n u o u s 
and 
w i t h o u t m e r i t . 
R o b e r t s does not argue t h a t a j u r y c o u l d 
t e l l 
t h a t the n o n r e f u n d a b l e - r e t a i n e r 
language was 
u n l a w f u l on i t s 
f a c e . 
I n s t e a d , 
she 
c l a i m s 
t h a t , 
i n 
l i g h t 
of 
the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
c o n c e s s i o n 
t h a t 
the 
n o n r e f u n d a b l e - r e t a i n e r 
language i s i n v a l i d and u n e n f o r c e a b l e 
i n Alabama, a j u r y c o u l d 
d e t e r m i n e 
w i t h o u t 
e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y 
t h a t 
L a n i e r ' s 
a l l e g e d 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o the c o n t r a r y c o n s t i t u t e d a b r e a c h of the 
s t a n d a r d of c a r e . 
28 
1100045 
" I n r e s p o n s e , L a n i e r t o l d me 
t h a t based on 
the 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' r e t a i n e r language of h i s employment 
c o n t r a c t t h a t I was 
not e n t i t l e d t o a r e f u n d of 
any 
f e e s . 
L a n i e r f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t I might as w e l l 
l e t him 
c o n t i n u e 
w o r k i n g on my 
case s i n c e I would 
not be r e c e i v i n g a r e f u n d of any f e e s even i f he 
was 
4 - ^ 
-i^i-v^ A 
1^ 
-^ 
4 - 
r-s 
^ 
t e r m i n a t e d . 
" I a c c e p t e d L a n i e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s as I had 
no 
r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h e r e was 
a n y t h i n g improper about 
the 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' r e t a i n e r language of 
L a n i e r ' s 
employment c o n t r a c t a t t h a t t i m e , or t h a t L a n i e r 
was 
p r o h i b i t e d 
from 
r e t a i n i n g 
the 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' 
r e t a i n e r d e s p i t e h i s t e r m i n a t i o n . 
"Based on 
L a n i e r ' s 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , 
I 
a g r e e d 
L a n i e r c o u l d c o n t i n u e 
on my case u n t i l such time as 
h i s 
b i l l a b l e 
hours 
e q u a l e d 
$50,000, 
or 
I 
was 
i n d i c t e d 
f o r 
c a p i t a l 
murder, 
w h i c h e v e r 
o c c u r r e d 
f i r s t . 
"But 
f o r 
the 
f r a u d u l e n t 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
of 
L a n i e r , I would not have p a i d L a n i e r a $50,000 
'non-
r e f u n d a b l e ' r e t a i n e r , nor would I have p e r m i t t e d 
him 
t o 
c o n t i n u e 
on 
my 
case a f t e r t e r m i n a t i n g 
him 
and 
demanding a r e f u n d 
of the $50,000 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' 
r e t a i n e r . " 
As the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s n o t e , " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s 
e v i d e n c e of such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s 
i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r the 
e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . " 
West v. Founders  
L i f e A s s u r . 
Co. 
of F l o r i d a , 547 
So. 2d 870, 
871 
( A l a . 1989). 
29 
1100045 
R o b e r t s ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
t e s t i m o n y i s s u f f i c i e n t 
t o meet 
t h i s 
s t a n d a r d as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s . 
The L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argued t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d 
t o a summary judgment because R o b e r t s had f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 
e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y 
t h a t L a n i e r had b r e a c h e d 
t h e a p p l i c a b l e 
s t a n d a r d o f c a r e .
1 0 
R o b e r t s argues t h a t h e r r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s 
f a l l 
w i t h i n " t h e 
common sense e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e 
r e q u i r i n g e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i n a l e g a l 
m a l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 
50. 
T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d " t h a t an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
t h a t a p l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t 
e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y i n 
s u p p o r t o f a l e g a l - m a l p r a c t i c e 
c l a i m o c c u r s where a 
l e g a l -
s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r ' s want o f 
s k i l l 
o r l a c k o f c a r e i s so 
a p p a r e n t as t o 
be u n d e r s t o o d by a l a y p e r s o n and r e q u i r e s o n l y 
common knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e t o u n d e r s t a n d 
i t . " 
V a l e n t i n e 
v. W a t t e r s , 896 So. 2d 385, 394 ( A l a . 2004). 
R o b e r t s a r g u e s : 
"[T]he j u r y w i l l d e c i d e whether L a n i e r b r e a c h e d t h e 
a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e i n : 
1 0"The s t a n d a r d o f c a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o a l e g a l 
s e r v i c e 
p r o v i d e r i s t h a t l e v e l o f such r e a s o n a b l e c a r e , 
s k i l l , and 
d i l i g e n c e as o t h e r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s 
i n t h e same g e n e r a l 
l i n e o f p r a c t i c e i n t h e same g e n e r a l 
l o c a l i t y o r d i n a r i l y have and e x e r c i s e i n 
a l i k e c a s e . " § 6-5-
5 7 2 ( 3 ) a . , A l a . Code 
1975. 
30 
1100045 
"(a) d e c e i v i n g R o b e r t s i n t o e x e c u t i n g 
a 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e 
r e t a i n e r ' 
employment 
c o n t r a c t under t h e p r e t e n s e t h a t such an 
agreement was v a l i d and l a w f u l ; 
"(b) m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g t o R o b e r t s 
t h a t 
under no c i r c u m s t a n c e , 
even i f he were 
t e r m i n a t e d , would R o b e r t s be e n t i t l e d t o 
a 
r e f u n d o f f e e s because t h e r e t a i n e r o f 
$50,000 was ' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' ; and 
"(c) 
c o n v e r t i n g funds 
b e l o n g i n g t o 
R o b e r t s , 
i n t h e 
approximate 
sum 
o f 
$50,000.00, t o h i s 
own p e r s o n a l 
u s e . 
"None 
o f 
t h e s e 
i s s u e s 
r e q u i r e s 
s c i e n t i f i c , 
t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge i n o r d e r 
f o r t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t o d e t e r m i n e 
whether t h e 
a p p l i c a b l e 
s t a n d a r d 
o f 
c a r e 
was 
b r e a c h e d . 
A 
l a y p e r s o n u t i l i z i n g common knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e 
can c e r t a i n l y make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 52. We agree. 
I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n s f o r non-
r e f u n d a b l e r e t a i n e r s a r e 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e i n Alabama and t h a t 
t h e 
L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s were n o t e n t i t l e d t o 
keep any unearned f e e s . 
I t i s a l s o 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t L a n i e r withdrew 
$50,000 
from 
R o b e r t s ' s a c c o u n t s and has n o t r e f u n d e d any o f t h a t f e e even 
though, 
a c c o r d i n g t o R o b e r t s , she a t t e m p t e d 
t o t e r m i n a t e 
L a n i e r ' s employment soon a f t e r i t 
began. I f t h e j u r y 
f i n d s 
t h a t L a n i e r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t o R o b e r t s t h a t t h e n o n r e f u n d a b l e -
r e t a i n e r language was v a l i d and t h a t she was n o t e n t i t l e d t o 
31 
1100045 
a 
r e f u n d 
of 
any 
of 
the 
r e t a i n e r , i t c o u l d , 
u s i n g "common 
knowledge 
and 
e x p e r i e n c e , " 
d e t e r m i n e 
t h a t 
such 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
and 
L a n i e r ' s 
r e t e n t i o n of 
the 
r e t a i n e r 
c o n s t i t u t e d 
a b r e a c h 
of 
the 
a p p l i c a b l e 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
c a r e . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
we 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
R o b e r t s 
was 
not 
r e q u i r e d 
t o 
p r o v i d e 
e x p e r t 
t e s t i m o n y 
as t o the r e m a i n i n g 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s . 
See V a l e n t i n e , 
s u p r a . 
The 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a l s o 
argued 
i n 
t h e i r 
summary-
judgment m o t i o n (1) t h a t R o b e r t s had 
f a i l e d t o prove t h a t 
"but 
f o r 
the 
a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n 
of 
the 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
c a r e 
by 
the 
d e f e n d a n t , the p l a i n t i f f would have a c h i e v e d a b e t t e r 
r e s u l t , 
or d i f f e r e n t outcome i n her c a s e " ; and 
(2) t h a t R o b e r t s 
had 
f a i l e d t o show t h a t she had s u f f e r e d any i n j u r y as a r e s u l t of 
the a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t . 
We 
f i n d t h e s e arguments t o be 
w i t h o u t 
m e r i t as 
w e l l . 
F i r s t , R o b e r t s has not a l l e g e d t h a t L a n i e r ' s conduct w i t h 
r e g a r d t o the u n d e r l y i n g c r i m i n a l m a t t e r i t s e l f f e l l below the 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
c a r e . 
I n s t e a d , 
her 
c l a i m s 
are 
r e l a t e d t o 
h i s 
conduct w i t h r e g a r d t o the terms o f , and the f e e s c h a r g e d f o r , 
L a n i e r ' s 
employment 
under 
the 
c o n t r a c t . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the 
32 
1100045 
outcome of the u n d e r l y i n g c r i m i n a l case i s i r r e l e v a n t t o 
the 
q u e s t i o n of wrongdoing i n t h i s 
a c t i o n . 
Second, 
R o b e r t s ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
t e s t i m o n y 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t 
" [ b ] u t 
f o r the 
f r a u d u l e n t 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
of L a n i e r , 
[she] 
would 
not 
have 
p a i d 
L a n i e r 
a 
$50,000 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' 
r e t a i n e r , nor would 
[she] have p e r m i t t e d 
him 
t o c o n t i n u e 
on 
[her] case a f t e r t e r m i n a t i n g him and demanding a r e f u n d of the 
$50,000 
' n o n - r e f u n d a b l e ' 
r e t a i n e r . " 
T h i s 
t e s t i m o n y 
i s 
s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a q u e s t i o n of f a c t as t o whether R o b e r t s 
s u f f e r e d damage as a r e s u l t of L a n i e r ' s a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t . 
"'The 
burden i s on 
the moving p a r t y 
t o make a p r i m a 
f a c i e 
showing t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t 
and 
t h a t 
i t i s e n t i t l e d 
t o 
a judgment as 
a m a t t e r 
of 
law.'" 
Alabama E l e c . Coop. v. B a i l e y ' s C o n s t r . 
Co., 
950 
So. 2d 
280, 
283 
( A l a . 
2006) 
( q u o t i n g 
C a p i t a l 
A l l i a n c e 
I n s . 
Co. 
v. 
 
Thorough-Clean, I n c . , 639 
So. 2d 1349, 
1350 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 4 ) ) . 
For the f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we h o l d t h a t the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary judgment i n f a v o r of the 
L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s on R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m s 
(1) t h a t L a n i e r 
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o her t h a t the c o n t r a c t as w r i t t e n was 
v a l i d and 
e n f o r c e a b l e ; 
(2) t h a t L a n i e r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o R o b e r t s t h a t she 
was 
not 
33 
1100045 
e n t i t l e d t o any r e f u n d o f t h e r e t a i n e r ; and (3) t h a t L a n i e r 
c o n v e r t e d R o b e r t s ' s funds t o h i s p e r s o n a l u s e . As t o t h o s e 
c l a i m s , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment and remand t h e 
case f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
I I . 
S t a l l i n g s and Coggin 
We now a d d r e s s R o b e r t s ' s arguments w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e 
summary judgments i n f a v o r o f S t a l l i n g s and C o g g i n . 
A l t h o u g h 
S t a l l i n g s and Coggin 
f i l e d s e p a r a t e summary-judgment motions 
i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , R o b e r t s a l l e g e s t h e same e r r o r and makes 
the 
same 
arguments as t o b o t h . 
R o b e r t s 
argues 
t h a t t h e 
summary-judgment motions f i l e d by S t a l l i n g s and Coggin "[were] 
not i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h R u l e 56, A l a . R. C i v . P., 
[and,] 
t h e r e f o r e , t h e burden 
never 
s h i f t e d t o R o b e r t s t o produce 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o d e f e a t t h e m o t i o n [ s ] . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
the summary judgment[s] 
[were] due t o be summarily d e n i e d and 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l i n g r a n t i n g t h e 
m o t i o n [ s ] . " 
R o b e r t s ' s b r i e f , a t 62. We agree. 
As 
R o b e r t s 
n o t e s , R u l e 
5 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"The [summary-judgment] motion s h a l l be s u p p o r t e d by 
a n a r r a t i v e summary o f what t h e movant contends t o 
be t h e u n d i s p u t e d m a t e r i a l 
f a c t s ; 
t h a t 
n a r r a t i v e 
summary may be s e t f o r t h i n t h e motion o r may be 
34 
1100045 
a t t a c h e d as an e x h i b i t . 
The n a r r a t i v e summary s h a l l 
be s u p p o r t e d by s p e c i f i c 
r e f e r e n c e s t o p l e a d i n g s , 
p o r t i o n s o f d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s , o r a f f i d a v i t s and 
may i n c l u d e c i t a t i o n s t o l e g a l 
a u t h o r i t y . " 
S t a l l i n g s ' s 
summary-judgment 
motion 
s t a t e d , 
i n i t s 
e n t i r e t y : 
"Defendant, Rodney L o r i n g S t a l l i n g s , moves t h e 
C o u r t t o e n t e r , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 56 o f t h e Alabama 
R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , a summary judgment i n 
t h e 
Defendant's 
f a v o r 
d i s m i s s i n g 
t h e a c t i o n 
on t h e 
ground 
t h a t 
t h e r e i s no genuine 
i s s u e as t o any 
m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e Defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o 
a judgment as a m a t t e r o f 
law. 
" T h i s m o t i o n i s based upon t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e 
d e p o s i t i o n s o f the p a r t i e s and upon t h e f a i l u r e o f 
the 
P l a i n t i f f t o p r o v i d e t o t h e Defendant t h e name 
of any e x p e r t which she e x p e c t s t o c a l l i n s u p p o r t 
of t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e Defendant. 
"The 
Defendant adopts t h e b r i e f and argument 
s u b m i t t e d by t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t , Steve 
L a n i e r , i n 
s u p p o r t o f h i s 
motion f o r 
summary judgment." 
Coggin's summary-judgment m o t i o n s i m i l a r l y p r o v i d e d , i n 
i t s 
e n t i r e t y : 
"COMES 
NOW, 
Coggin 
& 
S t a l l i n g s , 
LLC, 
( d i s s o l v e d ) , 
and r e q u e s t [ s ] 
t h e C o u r t t o e n t e r , 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 56 o f t h e Alabama R u l e s o f 
C i v i l 
P r o c e d u r e , 
a 
summary 
judgment 
i n 
i t s f a v o r 
d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e r e i s 
no 
genuine i s s u e [ o f ] m a t e r i a l 
f a c t and Defendant i s 
e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f 
law. 
" T h i s m o t i o n i s based upon t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e 
d e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , and upon t h e absence o f 
any e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e Defendant 
35 
1100045 
f a i l e d t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e f o r r e n d e r i n g 
l e g a l s e r v i c e s i n Alabama. 
"Defendant 
r e s p e c t f u l l y 
adopts the 
b r i e f 
and 
argument of Co-Defendant, 
Steve L a n i e r , i n s u p p o r t 
of 
i t s 
summary judgment m o t i o n . " 
N e i t h e r S t a l l i n g s ' s motion nor Coggin's motion 
c o n t a i n s 
any s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t s or any d i s c u s s i o n o f R o b e r t s ' s c l a i m s . 
T h i s C o u r t has 
s t a t e d : 
"'The [summary-judgment] movant has the 
i n i t i a l 
burden o f making a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t t h e r e i s 
no genuine 
i s s u e of m a t e r i a l 
f a c t ; 
i f the movant 
makes t h a t showing, the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o the 
nonmovant t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e of each 
element 
of the 
c l a i m 
c h a l l e n g e d by 
the movant.' 
Harper v. Winston County, 892 So. 2d 346, 349 ( A l a . 
2004) (emphasis added). 
However, i f the movant does 
not 
s a t i s f y 
h i s 
i n i t i a l 
burden, 
'then he 
i s not 
e n t i t l e d t o judgment. No d e f e n s e t o an 
i n s u f f i c i e n t  
showing i s r e q u i r e d . ' 
Ray v. M i d f i e l d Park, I n c . , 
293 
A l a . 609, 
612, 
308 
So. 
2d 
686, 
688 
(1975) 
(emphasis added). 
'A m o t i o n t h a t does not 
comply 
w i t h R u l e 5 6 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] does not r e q u i r e 
a response i n d e f e n s e from the nonmovant.' 
Horn v.  
F a d a l M a c h i n i n g C t r s . , LLC, 972 So. 2d 63, 70 ( A l a . 
2007). 
S i m p l y s t a t e d , '"[a] summary judgment i s not 
p r o p e r 
i f the movant has 
not 
c o m p l i e d w i t h 
the 
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 56."' 972 So. 2d a t 70 
( q u o t i n g 
N o r t h w e s t 
F l o r i d a 
T r u s s , I n c . v. 
B a l d w i n 
County 
 
Comm'n, 782 So. 2d 274, 277 
( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . " 
White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS 
I I , LLC, 998 So. 2d 
1042, 
1054-55 ( A l a . 2008). 
Coggin argues t h a t i t s summary-judgment motion c o m p l i e d 
w i t h R u l e 56(c) because i t a t t a c h e d t o i t s 
motion "the b r i e f 
36 
1100045 
and 
argument of L a n i e r , 
t o g e t h e r 
w i t h 
a l l s u b m i s s i o n s 
and 
r e f e r e n c e d d e p o s i t i o n s of a l l 
p a r t i e s , " Coggin's b r i e f , a t 11, 
and 
i n c o r p o r a t e d them by 
r e f e r e n c e .
1 1 
However, as 
R o b e r t s 
n o t e s , the L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s made no mention i n t h e i r summary-
judgment m o t i o n 
of 
R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
S t a l l i n g s 
or 
C o g g i n , nor d i d t h e y p r e s e n t any f a c t s or arguments r e l a t e d t o 
those c l a i m s . 
M e r e l y i n c o r p o r a t i n g by r e f e r e n c e a motion t h a t 
i n c l u d e d no mention o f , or f a c t s or arguments r e l a t e d t o , the 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t them was 
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g S t a l l i n g s ' s 
and 
Coggin's motions i n t o c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 5 6 ( c ) . 
"A summary-
judgment movant does not 
d i s c h a r g e 
h i s 
i n i t i a l 
burden 
t o 
c h a l l e n g e 
the 
s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e of a nonmovant's 
c l a i m by s i m p l y i g n o r i n g the c l a i m . " 
White Sands, 998 So. 
2d 
a t 1055. 
"A summary judgment i s not p r o p e r i f the movant has 
not 
c o m p l i e d 
w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 56." 
N o r t h w e s t 
 
F l o r i d a T r u s s , I n c . v. B a l d w i n County Comm'n, 782 So. 2d 
274, 
277 
( A l a . 2000). 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
i n 
e n t e r i n g summary judgments i n f a v o r of S t a l l i n g s and C o g g i n . 
We 
r e v e r s e 
those judgments and remand the case f o r f u r t h e r 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
1
1 S t a l l i n g s has not 
f i l e d a b r i e f w i t h t h i s 
C o u r t . 
37 
1100045 
C o n c l u s i o n 
For 
t h e r e a s o n s 
s t a t e d above, we 
a f f i r m t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e L a n i e r 
d e f e n d a n t s 
w i t h r e g a r d t o R o b e r t s ' s r e q u e s t f o r 
a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment 
and w i t h r e s p e c t t o h e r c l a i m t h a t L a n i e r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o 
R o b e r t s a t t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d t h a t he was 
q u a l i f i e d t o r e p r e s e n t h e r 
i n 
Alabama on t h e n o n c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
c h a r g e . 
However, we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s summary judgment 
i n 
f a v o r o f t h e L a n i e r d e f e n d a n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o R o b e r t s ' s 
c l a i m s t h a t L a n i e r d e c e i v e d h e r i n t o e x e c u t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t 
under t h e p r e t e n s e t h a t i t 
was v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e , 
t h a t 
L a n i e r 
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o R o b e r t s 
t h a t 
she would n o t be 
e n t i t l e d t o any r e f u n d o f t h e r e t a i n e r p a i d under t h e c o n t r a c t 
i f h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was t e r m i n a t e d , 
and t h a t L a n i e r 
t o o k 
R o b e r t s ' s funds f o r 
h i s p e r s o n a l u s e . We a l s o r e v e r s e t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s summary judgments i n f a v o r o f S t a l l i n g s and 
C o g g i n . We remand t h e case f o r 
f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. 
Cobb, C.J., 
and S t u a r t , B o l i n , and Murdock, J J . , c o n c u r . 
38