Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01317/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THOMAS P. BARRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

Unltrd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY ~ 1 90 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1317 

v. 

ROBERT A. FRANCIS, P.C. 

and ROBERT A. FRANCIS, 

Defendant-Appellees. 

( D . C . No . 8 8-B:- 9 9 8 ) 

(Dist. of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Thomas Barry brought this diversity action alleging legal 

malpractice under Colorado law against Robert A. Francis, P.C., 

and Robert A. Francis (Francis). The undisputed dispositive facts 

are briefly as follows. Barry retained Francis to represent him 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1317 Document: 01019969784 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 1 
/ 

in a state court lawsuit brought by Barry. Barry subsequently 

discharged Francis and retained Ashley Anderson as counsel. 

Although Francis never formally withdrew and Anderson never made a 

formal entry of appearance, the attorney for the state court 

defendant dealt with Anderson as Barry's sole attorney. After his 

discharge as Barry's counsel, Francis received a notice from the 

state court that Barry's suit would be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute in some five weeks unless cause was shown otherwise. 

Although Francis promptly notified Anderson of the notice both by 

telephone and in writing, Anderson did nothing and the case was 

dismissed. Refiling was precluded by the running of the statute 

of limitations. 

Barry sued Anderson and obtained a default judgment. Barry 

also sued Francis, alleging that Francis had committed legal 

malpractice by failing to formally withdraw as counsel, and that 

this conduct was the cause of the dismissal of his suit. The 

district court granted Francis' motion for summary judgment. See 

Barry v. Francis, 718 F.Supp. 1492 (D.Colo. 1989). The court 

concluded that Francis had no authority to act for Barry after 

Barry terminated the attorney-client relationship, and that any 

residual duty imposed by the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure to 

formally withdraw was satisfied when Francis gave notice of the 

proposed dismissal of the suit to Barry's counsel. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1317 Document: 01019969784 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 2 
We have carefully reviewed the arguments and authorities of 

the parties. We agree with the district court's articulation of 

the legal duty imposed on Francis. We affirm substantially for 

the reasons given by the district court. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1317 Document: 01019969784 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 3