Opinion ID: 1835420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alabama Legal Services Liability Act

Text: The Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, found in §§ 6-5-570 to 6-5-581 of the Alabama Code, provides that [t]here shall be only one form and cause of action against legal service providers in courts in the State of Alabama and it shall be known as the legal service liability action and shall have the meaning as defined herein. Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-573. The term legal service provider is defined as: Anyone licensed to practice law by the State of Alabama or engaged in the practice of law in the State of Alabama. The term legal service provider includes professional corporations, associations, and partnerships and the members of such professional corporations, associations, and partnerships and the persons, firms, or corporations either employed by or performing work or services for the benefit of such professional corporations, associations, and partnerships including, without limitation, law clerks, legal assistants, legal secretaries, investigators, paralegals, and couriers. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-572(2). Langston Frazer argues that, according to § 6-5-573, because it is a legal service provider, the only type of action that can be brought against it is a legal service liability action. The term legal service liability action is defined as: Any action against a legal service provider in which it is alleged that some injury or damage was caused in whole or in part by the legal service provider's violation of the standard of care applicable to a legal service provider. A legal service liability action embraces all claims for injuries or damages or wrongful death whether in contract or in tort and whether based on an intentional or unintentional act or omission. A legal services liability action embraces any form of action in which a litigant may seek legal redress for a wrong or an injury and every legal theory of recovery, whether common law or statutory, available to a litigant in a court in the State of Alabama now or in the future. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-572(1). Because Cunningham did not, from the wording of his complaint, expressly sue under the ALSLA, Langston Frazer argues that the dismissal was proper. Setting aside the question of what level of specificity the ALSLA requires for a complaint filed pursuant to that Act, we address the broader issue raised: whether any claim against an entity that is a legal service providereven a claim not related to that entity's activities in providing legal servicesmust be brought under the ALSLA. The answer is no. The language of the ALSLA makes it clear that that Act refers to actions against legal service providers alleging breaches of their duties in providing legal services. Conversely, from a plaintiff's perspective, the ALSLA applies to any claim originating from his receipt of legal services. This is evident from several provisions throughout the Act, such as the section setting out the standard of care: a. The standard of care applicable to a legal service provider is that level of such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated legal service providers in the same general line of practice in the same general locality ordinarily have and exercise in a like case. b. However, if the legal service provider publishes the fact that he or she is certified as a specialist in an area of the law or if the legal service provider solicits business by publicly advertising as a specialist in an area of the law, the standard of care applicable to such legal service provider shall be such reasonable care, skill and diligence as other legal service providers practicing as a specialist in the same area of the law ordinarily have and exercise in a like case.  Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-572(3)a. and b. (emphasis added); see also Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-580. The in a like case language qualifies the statement of the standard, both as to nonspecialist and specialist attorneys; that language clearly assumes that if this standard of care is to be breached, it will be breached in the handling of a case (i.e., a legal matter) by a legal service provider. That the ALSLA refers to a lawyer's handling of legal matters is also made apparent by the definition of underlying action: The term underlying action refers to the legal matter concerning the handling of which it is alleged that the legal services provider breached the applicable standard of care. The term is applicable in legal service liability actions in which the legal service provider's liability is dependent in part upon or derived from the legal service provider's acts or omissions concerning the handling of the underlying action. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-572(5) (emphasis added). Of course, our purpose in examining a statute in this way is to determine legislative intent, which is normally determined most accurately from considering the words the legislature used in writing the statute. In the ALSLA, however, the legislature included an express statement of legislative intent: It is hereby declared by the Legislature of the State of Alabama that a crisis threatens the delivery of legal service to the people of Alabama and that the quality of legal services which should be made available to the citizens of this state is in jeopardy. It is the declared intent of this legislature to insure that quality legal services continue to be available at reasonable costs to the citizens of the State of Alabama. This legislature finds and declares that the increasing threat of legal actions against legal service providers contributes to an increase in the cost of legal services and places a heavy burden upon those who can least afford such cost and that the threat of such legal actions contributes to the expense of providing legal services to be performed by legal service providers which otherwise would not be considered necessary, and that the spiraling costs and decreasing availability of essential legal services caused by the threat of such litigation constitute[] a danger to the welfare of the citizens of this state, and that this article should be given effect immediately to help control the spiraling cost of legal services and to insure the continued availability of vital legal services.... It is the intent of the legislature to establish a comprehensive system governing all legal actions against legal service providers. The legislature finds that in order to protect the rights and welfare of all Alabama citizens and in order to provide for the fair, orderly and efficient administration of legal actions against legal service providers in the courts of this state, this article provides a complete and unified approach to legal actions against legal service providers and creates a new and single form of action and cause of action exclusively governing the liability of legal service providers known as a legal service liability action and provides for the time in which a legal service liability action may be brought and maintained is required [sic]. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-570. It is apparent that the legislature was centrally concerned with the threat posed by legal actions against Alabama legal service providers. The question is whether the legislature meant by that phrase any lawsuit against any attorney for whatever cause of action, or meant lawsuits alleging legal malpractice against attorneys. For example, was the legislature responding to the threat of legal actions against attorneys in regard to such things as a law firm's contracting to have a drink machine placed in its office but then failing to pay in accordance with its contract; an attorney's involvement in a motor-vehicle accident; or an attorney's dispute with his neighbor over a landline? These situations commonly give rise to lawsuits, but the disputes presented in those lawsuits would exist regardless of the one party's status as a legal service provider and would have no special relation to that status. It is clear from the language of the legislature's statement of intent that by enacting the ALSLA the legislature was attempting to provide a unified approach to those legal actions against legal service providers that, if abused, could threaten the delivery of legal service to the people of Alabama and... the quality of legal services which should be made available to the citizens of this state by forcing citizens to pay increased costs for legal services and decreasing the availability of those services. See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-570. Those legal actions the legislature was concerned about are, of course, actions against attorneys in their professional capacities; the legislature made this point evident in its statement of intent: In addition, this legislature finds that legal service providers are experiencing great and increasing difficulties in obtaining professional liability insurance and that there is a great and rapid increase in the cost of professional liability insurance. This legislature finds that both the availability and the cost of professional liability insurance [are] in direct consequence to the threat of legal actions against Alabama legal service providers.  Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-570 (emphasis added). Therefore, we conclude, from the language of the statute, that the ALSLA does not apply to an action filed against a legal service provider by someone whose claim does not arise out of the receipt of legal services. Although this fact is not determinative, we note that this holding is consistent with prior Alabama caselaw. Every case decided by this Court or the Court of Civil Appeals that has concerned the ALSLA has presented a dispute where the plaintiff was receiving legal services. See, e.g., Ex parte Toler, 710 So.2d 415 (Ala.1998); Independent Stave Co. v. Bell, Richardson & Sparkman, P.A., 678 So.2d 770 (Ala.1996); Third Generation, Inc. v. Wilson, 668 So.2d 518 (Ala.1995); Voyager Guar. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 631 So.2d 848 (Ala. 1993); Adams v. Erben, 681 So.2d 594 (Ala. Civ.App.1996); Russell v. Burnham, Klinefelter, Halsey, Jones & Cater, P.C., 674 So.2d 1285 (Ala.Civ.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1287 (Ala.1995). Also, as Cunningham points out in his brief, several cases regarding legal service providers that arose after the ALSLA was adopted have been decided without any mention of the ALSLA, and those cases involved facts similar to those presented in Cunningham's case. See Ex parte Counts, 683 So.2d 968, 969 (Ala.1996) (stating that a fee-splitting dispute between attorneys would be answered by basic contract law); Vowell & Meelheim, P.C. v. Beddow, Erben & Bowen, P.A., 679 So.2d 637 (Ala.1996) (resolving dispute over division of legal fees, without reference to the ALSLA); Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, P.C. v. Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, 554 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (deciding question regarding enforcement of fee agreement, without reference to the ALSLA). Because the ALSLA applies only to lawsuits based on the relationship between legal service providers and those who have received legal services, the provisions of that Act, including its statute of limitations, do not apply to Cunningham's claims against Langston Frazer.