Opinion ID: 2520451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Postconviction Relief

Text: To prevail on a claim for legal malpractice in Colorado, the plaintiff must show that (1) the attorney owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the attorney breached that duty, and (3) the attorney proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. Stone v. Satriana, 41 P.3d 705, 712 (Colo.2002). Kaufman and Levinson urge us to find that, in cases where a former client is suing his or her criminal defense attorney for malpractice, the client is required to show that he or she has obtained postconviction relief as an additional element. The idea that a former client must obtain postconviction relief before bringing a malpractice suit against his or her criminal defense attorney appears to have had its genesis in a 1974 law review article. Otto M. Kaus & Ronald E. Mallen, The Misguiding Hand of Counsel  Reflections on Criminal Malpractice, 21 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1191 (1974); see Duncan v. Campbell, 123 N.M. 181, 936 P.2d 863, 866 (N.M.App.1997). Since then, many jurisdictions that have considered the question have adopted some form of postconviction relief as a prerequisite to maintaining the malpractice action. See, e.g., Shaw v. State, 816 P.2d 1358 (Alaska 1991); Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo, 25 Cal.4th 1194, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 25 P.3d 670 (2001); Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931 (Fla.1999); Levine v. Kling, 123 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.1997) (applying Illinois law); Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 2003); Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 72 P.3d 911 (2003); Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740 (Minn.2003); Morgano v. Smith, 110 Nev. 1025, 879 P.2d 735 (1994); Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126 (1987); Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556 (1993); Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 621 A.2d 108 (1993); Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103 (Tenn.2001); Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.1995); Adkins v. Dixon, 253 Va. 275, 482 S.E.2d 797 (1997). The requirement is sometimes referred to as the exoneration rule. See, e.g., Canaan, 72 P.3d at 914; Gibson, 58 S.W.3d at 109. Several other jurisdictions have directly or impliedly declined to make prior postconviction relief a requirement for suit, although some insist on an affirmative demonstration of innocence of the underlying crime from the former client. See, e.g., Mylar v. Wilkinson, 435 So.2d 1237 (Ala.1983); McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C.1980); Glenn v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E.2d 783 (1991) (former client has burden of proving innocence of underlying charge); Gebhardt v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994); Jepson v. Stubbs, 555 S.W.2d 307 (Mo.1977); Ereth v. Cascade County, 318 Mont. 355, 81 P.3d 463 (2003); Rodriguez v. Nielsen, 259 Neb. 264, 609 N.W.2d 368 (2000) (requires establishment of actual innocence); Mahoney v. Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, 143 N.H. 491, 727 A.2d 996 (1999) (criminal malpractice action will fail if claimant does not allege and prove actual innocence); Duncan, 936 P.2d at 865 (N.M.App.1997); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989). Most jurisdictions cite various public policy reasons to justify their decision either to adopt or reject the exoneration rule. Those jurisdictions that adopt the exoneration rule often also assert that, absent postconviction relief, the former client cannot, as a matter of law, establish either the causation or damages element necessary to sustain a malpractice claim. See, e.g., Stevens, 851 P.2d at 566 (exoneration required to establish damages); Peeler, 909 S.W.2d at 497-98 (exoneration required to show causation). In Stevens, the Oregon Supreme Court reasoned that what constitutes legally cognizable harm is a policy choice. 851 P.2d at 560. Reviewing the overall legislative scheme for procedural criminal law in Oregon, the court determined that it was the policy of the state to treat any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense as validly convicted unless and until the person's conviction has been reversed. Id. at 561. Because persons convicted of crimes are already afforded many protections and opportunities for relief from negligence of counsel, the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to treat victims of alleged negligence by defense counsel as having been `harmed,' unless they had been exonerated. Id. at 562. Jurisdictions and commentators disagreeing that prior exoneration should be a precondition to suit, dismiss this argument as a legal fiction. See, e.g., Gebhardt, 510 N.W.2d at 906 n. 13; Duncan, 936 P.2d at 867-68; Stevens at 566 (Unis, J., concurring); cf. Coscia, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 25 P.3d at 680 (declining to adopt the legal fiction that an innocent person convicted of a crime suffered no actual injury until he or she was exonerated through postconviction relief, but adopting exoneration rule). The legal malpractice plaintiff in Stevens pleaded guilty on the advice of his attorney and was exonerated when another person confessed to the crimes. Under the Stevens majority's theory of damages, had the actual perpetrator not come forward, the plaintiff would not have been harmed by the wrongful conviction. Reacting to the absurd result created by the majority's no relief/no harm rule, the specially concurring justice noted that persons convicted of a crime will be astonished to learn that, even if their lawyers' negligence resulted in their being wrongly convicted and imprisoned, they were not harmed when they were wrongly convicted and imprisoned, but, rather, that they are harmed only if and when they are exonerated. Stevens, 851 P.2d at 566 (Unis, J., concurring). The Michigan Supreme Court also rejected the related notion that damages were not final until exoneration, stating that harm is established not by the finality of the damages, but by the occurrence of an identifiable and appreciable loss. Gebhardt, 510 N.W.2d at 904. Putting any analytical flaws aside, our decision in Morrison necessarily rejected the Stevens majority's construction of harm in malpractice suits between former clients and their criminal defense attorneys. In Morrison, we decided that the statute of limitations for a criminal defendant's malpractice action is not tolled while he or she pursues direct appeal or postconviction relief. 91 P.3d at 1051. The General Assembly in Colorado has adopted the discovery rule for determining when a cause of action accrues for statute of limitations purposes. § 13-80-108(1), C.R.S. (2004). Applying the discovery rule to legal malpractice actions, we concluded that the claim accrues when a plaintiff learns facts that would put a reasonable person on notice of the general nature of damage and that the damage was caused by the wrongful conduct of an attorney. Morrison, 91 P.3d at 1053 (quoting Broker House Int'l, Ltd. v. Bendelow, 952 P.2d 860, 863 (Colo.App.1998)) (emphasis added). Under the two-track approach adopted in Morrison, the criminal defendant must file a malpractice claim within the specified period after the defendant learns or should have learned of the injury and its cause. Id. at 1055. The criminal defendant may then seek a stay in the malpractice suit, which the trial court has the discretion to grant or deny, until all appellate and postconviction matters concerning the criminal case are resolved. Id. Implicit in this approach and Colorado's definition of accrual for legal malpractice claims is the notion that the criminal defendant can suffer damages prior to exoneration. If a criminal defendant were unable to suffer damages before exoneration, then the claim could not accrue before postconviction proceedings are concluded. However, Morrison clearly holds to the contrary. As a result, we reject the notion that a former client cannot establish the damage element necessary to sustain a malpractice action against his or her criminal defense attorney unless he or she first obtains postconviction relief. We also reject the concept that, as a matter of law, a criminal defendant cannot establish the causation element of a malpractice claim unless he or she has been exonerated through postconviction relief. In order to demonstrate causation in a legal malpractice case, the client must prove the case within a case, meaning he or she must show that the claim underlying the malpractice action should have been successful if the attorney had acted in accordance with his or her duties. Bebo Construction Co. v. Mattox & O'Brien, P.C., 990 P.2d 78, 83 (Colo.1999). It may be that in some or even the majority of legal malpractice suits against criminal defense attorneys, their former clients will not be able to prove that the outcome of the criminal case would have been successful unless they prevail in some manner in appellate or postconviction proceedings. Causation should be evaluated on the facts of a particular case, and we discern no reason for erecting a permanent barrier to malpractice claims with a blanket rule. See Krahn, 538 N.E.2d at 1062 (We reject the suggestion that a proximate cause analysis can be eliminated and replaced by a rule of thumb based on whether the malpractice plaintiff has succeeded in overturning the underlying criminal conviction.). Having determined that the existing elements of a malpractice claim do not dictate that a criminal defendant must obtain postconviction relief before he or she can maintain suit, we now consider whether other reasons compel adoption of such a requirement. We are not persuaded by the policy arguments advanced by jurisdictions that impose an exoneration requirement. Several of the justifications offered for the exoneration rule, such as promoting judicial economy, [1] providing a convenient date for triggering the statute of limitations, [2] and protecting criminal defendants, [3] are satisfied or rendered moot by the two-track approach adopted in Morrison. Affording the trial court the discretion to stay the civil suit while the criminal proceedings are completed serves the interests of judicial economy in the same manner that the exoneration rule does. See Morrison, 91 P.3d at 1056; Gebhardt, 510 N.W.2d at 907. Those jurisdictions citing judicial economy as a reason for requiring postconviction relief prior to filing a malpractice claim argue that such a requirement would eliminate frivolous suits because issue preclusion would serve as a bar in the event that the criminal defendant was denied postconviction relief. Shaw, 816 P.2d at 1361. Issue preclusion can serve in precisely the same manner without making prior postconviction relief a requirement, either through operation of the stay or otherwise. The requirement that the criminal defendant prove the case within the case is also a heavy burden that will screen out frivolous claims. Furthermore, the judicial economy consideration cuts both ways. The exoneration rule forces the criminal defendant to file two suits, because he or she cannot go forward on a malpractice suit without attacking the criminal conviction. Without a prior exoneration requirement, the criminal defendant may decide to file the civil suit only, thereby conserving judicial resources. [4] Similarly, the rights of criminal defendants are adequately protected by the Morrison two-track approach. Imposing a further requirement of obtaining prior postconviction relief is therefore unnecessary. With the civil suit stayed, the criminal defendant is able to pursue postconviction relief free from distraction or the fear that the former attorney will reveal information damaging to the criminal proceedings. See Morrison, 91 P.3d at 1056; Gebhardt 510 N.W.2d at 907. Finally, the statute of limitations issue was squarely presented and addressed in Morrison and a bright line rule was rejected. 91 P.3d at 1056. Many jurisdictions that have adopted the exoneration rule also point to the policy of ensuring that criminals do not profit from their criminal conduct as justification. See, e.g., Coscia, 25 P.3d at 673; Gibson, 58 S.W.3d at 110; Peeler, 909 S.W.2d at 498. This argument bears similarity to the idea that a criminal defendant cannot demonstrate harm or causation unless and until formal exoneration has been achieved. Like those proposed barriers to maintaining a malpractice suit, preventing an individual from profiting from criminal conduct is better addressed at the individual case level. Before recovering damages, a criminal defendant will have to demonstrate that the negligence of his or her attorney caused legally cognizable harm. A criminal defendant who prevails in a malpractice action is receiving compensation for an injury suffered, in the form of time spent in prison or the burden of a criminal record, not a windfall. Policy reasons do, however, persuade us that obtaining prior postconviction relief should not be an element of legal malpractice claims against criminal defense attorneys. We see no reason why criminal defense lawyers should be afforded greater protection against liability for negligence than other professionals. Jurisdictions adopting the exoneration rule sometimes justify the disparate treatment of malpractice claims brought against civil and criminal attorneys, or against criminal attorneys and other licensed professionals, by arguing that criminal malpractice claims are unique due to the postconviction remedies available to criminal defendants. See, e.g., Morgano, 879 P.2d at 738 n. 3; Gibson, 58 S.W.3d at 116. Postconviction remedies exist to protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, not to protect negligent defense attorneys. Accordingly, the availability of such remedies should not serve as an additional shield for attorneys who practice a particular form of law. Physicians who practice a particular type of medicine may be able to persuasively argue that their practice is unique, but they would still be subject to the same set of malpractice elements as other physicians. Even without considering policy, our decision in Morrison strongly suggests that prevailing in postconviction proceedings is not a prerequisite to maintaining a malpractice suit in Colorado. In Morrison we held that: In the event that a particular criminal defendant must obtain appellate relief to avoid dismissal of a pending malpractice action, or if proceeding with a malpractice action would jeopardize the criminal defendant's rights, the trial court may stay the malpractice action pending resolution of the criminal case. Id. at 1058 (emphasis added). The language used in the opinion and the system it set up indicates that there was no blanket rule requiring every criminal defendant to first obtain postconviction relief. Rather than directing the trial court to stay all malpractice suits until the outcome of postconviction proceedings was known, we gave the trial court discretion to do so. We recognized that certain cases may present factual situations necessitating a final determination of postconviction relief, but that not all would. Because of this recognition, we chose flexibility over a bright line rule. Today, we make the same choice and hold that former clients are not required to obtain postconviction relief before bringing a malpractice action against their criminal defense attorneys. While some criminal defendants may not be able to establish causation without obtaining such relief, we find that this element of the claim should be addressed individually rather than through adoption of the exoneration rule.