Opinion ID: 1796333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err by granting the motion for summary judgment of erwin c. ward?

Text: On January 15, 1993 Circuit Court Judge James E. Graves, Jr., granted summary judgment to defendant Ward and defendant SW & W, P.A.. Wilbourn's claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress were found to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations, Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35, and accordingly, the claims were dismissed with prejudice. Wilbourn does not appeal this part of Judge Graves' order. As to Wilbourn's remaining claims, including legal malpractice, Judge Graves ordered that interrogatories be served by defendants' counsel on Wilbourn to seek further discovery of any and all facts the plaintiff had in his possession or that were known to the plaintiff regarding the alleged disclosure and use of the confidential information. A hearing was held January 8, 1993, to hear further arguments. After considering the interrogatories and answers, further argument and remaining record, Judge Graves found no genuine issue of material fact, and granted summary judgment to Ward and SW & W, P.A., in regard to Wilbourn's claims. To recover in a legal malpractice case in this state, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence the following: (1) Existence of a lawyer-client relationship; (2) Negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling his client's affairs entrusted to him; and (3) Proximate cause of the injury. Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 633 (Miss. 1987). As to the second factor, a lawyer owes his client the duty to exercise the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by the members of the legal profession similarly situated. Failure to do so constitutes negligent conduct on the part of the lawyer. Id. at 634. As to the third essential ingredient, the plaintiff must show that, but for their attorney's negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. See Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., 186 So.2d 756 (Miss. 1966); Nause v. Goldman, 321 So.2d 304 (Miss. 1975); Hickox v. Holleman, infra . This Court has stated that legal malpractice may be a violation of the standard of care of exercising the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the legal profession similarly situated, or the breach of a fiduciary duty. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Foster, 528 So.2d 255, 285 (Miss. 1988). This Court has recognized each lawyer owes his client duties falling into three broad categories: (a) the duty of care; (b) a duty of loyalty; and (c) duties provided by contract. Singleton v. Stegall, 580 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Miss. 1991). The duty of loyalty, or sometimes, the duty of fidelity speaks to the fiduciary nature of the lawyer's duties to his client, of confidentiality and of candor and disclosure. See Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney D, 579 So.2d 559 (Miss. 1991); Singleton v. Stegall, 580 So.2d at 1245. Wilbourn contends Ward and the SW & W professional association breached confidences gained during the representation between 1982-1985, and thus, breached a duty of loyalty. However, Wilbourn has never stated with specificity the confidences breached. Instead, Wilbourn relies upon the potential for breach of confidentiality. Wilbourn brought this suit in 1990 and, to this date, has not shown or alleged any breach in particularity. Defendants contend Wilbourn largely bases his claims upon the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Regarding a violation of the professional conduct, the Court has stated: ... For the moment it is important that we keep well in mind that, in describing the scope of the Mississippi Rules, we have ordered: Violation of a Rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a duty has been breached. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a Rule is just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rules. Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duties of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty. Singleton v. Stegall, 580 So.2d at 1244-45. The Code of Professional Conduct is not used as a measuring stick to determine civil liability for legal malpractice. It is incumbent for Wilbourn to show the harm and resulting damage from the harm to establish liability. Wilbourn had been a client of the SW & W partnership between 1982-1985. In 1985, Chunn and Landrum left SW & W to form their own law firm. Wilbourn directed that his file be given to Chunn because he had performed all of Wilbourn's work. After Chunn and Landrum left the SW & W partnership, the firm became SW & W, a professional association. One of the primary reasons for creating a professional association is limited liability. Although Ward had been a partner in the old firm, he entered the SW & W association as an employee. Wilbourn has never been a client of the SW & W, P.A., nor has he ever contacted any of the attorneys of SW & W, P.A., for legal help. Wilbourn has not alleged which employee(s) of SW & W, P.A. breached confidences or articulated what those breached confidences are. At deposition, Wilbourn only stated he believes SW & W, P.A. has breached confidences gained through the earlier representation and used those confidences against him in the Johnston suit. Archie McDonnell, Jr. stated he believed SW & W knew something more than the average person about the affairs of CNB and Wilbourn; however he never stated what that something was. Chunn stated he believes the earlier representation is related to the Johnston suit. Wilbourn has failed to allege SW & W, P.A., and Ward are responsible for his loss, i.e., the Johnston family filing suit against him. In fact, the Johnston family approached another attorney, William Ready. Only after Mr. Ready accepted the Johnston's case did he inquire and ask to associate SW & W, P.A., to pursue the Johnston's claims. Wilbourn has never alleged SW & W, P.A., and Ward are responsible for the Johnston suit or that the suit would not have been filed if not for SW & W. Because of this, Wilbourn has not alleged what confidences were breached and used in the Johnston suit. Without any specific allegations Wilbourn has not differentiated between the Johnston's knowledge of CNB and Wilbourn before associating SW & W, P.A., and after employing SW & W, P.A. If a complaint is intended to allege a breach of fiduciary duty, it would be necessary to state with particularity the facts which purportedly created the duty that was breached, so that the court could determine as a matter of law whether there was such a duty. Parker v. Gordon, 442 So.2d 273, 275 (Fla.App. 1983); See also 61A Am.Jur.2d Pleading § 18. As presented, Wilbourn's complaint merely makes the conclusory statement that a fiduciary duty was violated. This is not sufficient. The case sub judice represents an issue of first impression in Mississippi. Other Mississippi cases have dealt with an attorney's fiduciary duties to clients and former clients. However, no Mississippi case has dealt with an attorney's duties to a former client in an adverse action against the former client in a similar matter. Other courts have stated the substantial relationship test between subject matters of representation must be a reality, involve actual adversity and a breach of confidences. Applying Louisiana law, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, stated even if successive proceedings were substantially related, a former client may expressly or tacitly waive his objection to his former attorney's representation of a client whose interests are adverse to the former client. Barre v. St. Martin, 636 So.2d 1061, 1063 (La. App. 5th Cir.1994). The Supreme Court of Tennessee considered a case, factually close to the case sub judice, involving a law firm suing a former client in a matter related to the earlier representation. Lazy Seven Coal Sales, Inc. v. Stone & Hinds, P.C., 813 S.W.2d 400 (Tenn. 1991). The Tennessee court stated even though the appearance of impropriety may be the basis for disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer, and perhaps the basis for disqualification in a legal proceeding, it cannot be the basis for civil liability without proof of a causal connection between a lawyer's conduct and any claimed damages. Id. at 410. The court explained that the lawyer who did not do anything wrong cannot be held liable only because it looks bad, and the conclusive presumption of shared confidences cannot be substituted for a causal connection between the acts of the lawyer and the alleged damages. Id. First, Wilbourn is asking this Court to presume Ward and others at SW & W, P.A., held confidences from the partnership's representation of Wilbourn. Second, Wilbourn is asking this Court to presume SW & W, P.A., breached confidences gained from the earlier representation, and used those confidences in the Johnston suit. SW & W, P.A., asked the Federal court in the Johnston suit to determine if SW & W, P.A., should be disqualified. When asked if he wanted SW & W disqualified, Wilbourn responded negatively. Wilbourn stated after three (3) years in Federal Court SW & W had already breached the confidences, and to disqualify the firm would hinder the trial. In cases involving successive representations, a party is required to move for his former lawyer be disqualified as soon as he is aware of the conflict, provided the motion for disqualification or the granting thereof would not place the former client at an unfair disadvantage. See Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85 (9th Cir.1983). The client cannot hold the right in reserve for tactical purposes until it would be most helpful to his position. Failure to move for disqualification at the earliest practical opportunity will constitute a waiver. See Central Milk Producers Cooperative v. Sentry Food Stores, 573 F.2d 988 (8th Cir.1978). Summary judgment was proper, although, no Mississippi case on point addresses an attorney's duties during an adverse suit against the former client in a similar matter. The cause of action is not established by merely showing that SW & W and Ward had access to confidential information or that the representation was adverse. Wilbourn must establish, not only SW & W, P.A., and Ward possessed and misused the confidential information but also the fiduciary breach was a proximate cause of the injury. These requirements are consistent with the Hickox requirement of proximate cause. Although Wilbourn alleged SW & W, P.A., and Ward breached and misused confidential information, he failed to show the causal connection.