Opinion ID: 1267344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper Venue in a Legal Malpractice Action

Text: We have not previously had the opportunity to discuss where venue is proper in a legal malpractice action. In a legal malpractice action, there are two suits: the malpractice against the lawyer and the underlying suit for which the client originally sought legal services, which may be considered a suit within a suit. The first question to be addressed is whether the term cause of action in W.Va.Code, 56-1-1(a) [1986] refers to the legal malpractice suit or to the underlying suit. Mr. Fitzsimmons contends the term cause of action refers to the legal malpractice action and the McGuires do not challenge this characterization. The Michigan Supreme Court recently reviewed the same issue in Coleman v. Gurwin, 443 Mich. 59, 503 N.W.2d 435 (1993). In Coleman, the client, a resident of Washtenaw County, met with Attorney Gurwin in Oakland County regarding a wrongful discharge suit arising out of Wayne County. The attorney told the client that his claim was not meritorious; after the statute of limitations had expired on the wrongful discharge suit, the client brought a legal malpractice action against the attorney in Wayne County. The attorney argued that venue was only proper in a county where the legal malpractice action arose, either Washtenaw County, where the client resided and the damages occurred, or Oakland County, where the legal representation began, but not Wayne County, where the wrongful discharge suit arose. The Michigan Supreme Court agreed and found venue proper where the legal malpractice action arose, reasoning that the underlying suit on which the legal malpractice action is based is not part of, in and of itself, the second or legal malpractice suit and therefore does not control a malpractice suit. Venue is based on where the alleged negligence occurred in the legal malpractice suit and not the underlying suit. In determining where the cause of action arose in the legal malpractice suit, the Michigan Court found that the attorney-client relationship was established in Oakland County; that legal advice was drafted and mailed in Oakland County and received in Washtenaw County; and that the statute of limitations ran while plaintiff resided in Washtenaw County. The Michigan Court concluded that venue was not proper in Wayne County because a legal malpractice action arises solely in the county where the allegedly negligent legal representation occurred. Id., 443 Mich. at 66, 503 N.W.2d at 438. However, several other states based their determination of proper venue on where the underlying suit arose. See Rouse Mechanical, Inc. v. Dahl, 489 N.W.2d 272 (Minn.App. 1992) (The trial court was not clearly required to change venue to county of defendant's residence, when defendant was alleged to have committed malpractice by failing to serve mechanic's lien statement upon property owner [in the county] where suit was brought.). See also Ebell v. Seapac Fisheries, Inc., 692 P.2d 956 (Alaska 1984) (venue is proper in the district in which the claim arose, which is the place of plaintiff's injury) and Weiner v. Prudential Mortgage Investors, Inc., 557 So.2d 912 (Fla.App.1990) (venue for legal malpractice action is where services were to be performed, that is, where the suit was to be filed); Ivey v. Padgett, 502 So.2d 22 (Fla.App.1986); Johnson v. Nelson, 275 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1979) (venue is proper where the defendant attorney resides or where the underlying suit was dismissed). Because W. Va.Code, 56-1-1(a) [1986] allows a suit to be brought where the cause of action arose, we find that in a legal malpractice suit the cause of action refers to the present, that is the legal malpractice suit, and not to the past or the underlying suit. We agree with the Michigan Supreme Court's finding that a legal malpractice action arises solely in the county where the allegedly negligent legal representation occurred. Coleman, 443 Mich. at 66, 503 N.W.2d at 438. We must now consider where this legal malpractice action arose in order to determine proper venue under W.Va.Code, 56-1-1(a) [1986]. B.