Opinion ID: 1763787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Significant Procedural History

Text: The majority cites to the record of the Court of Appeals ruling in Kuhlman Electric Corporation v. Stephen R. Chappell, et al, Nos.2003-CA-001232-MR and 2004-CA-000633-MR, 2005 WL 3243498 (Ky. App. Dec.2, 2005) which points out discovery before the trial court was not closed or complete when the trial court was asked to address the question, who is the client. The record was sufficiently complete to address this primary question. When the trial court wrongly concluded there was no attorney-client obligation between Landrum & Shouse (herein L&S) and Kuhlman Electric/Self Insured (herein Kuhlman/SI), the trial court fairly resolved there was no reason to go further and dismissed the claims as to L&S and Amerisure. When the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the threshold issue of attorney-client relationship, and then adopted the results of the trial court in dismissing the claim as to L&S, it concluded no damages would have been provable under any set of facts. This conclusion was based on the finality of the workers' compensation award finding a new injury with apportionment of benefits. I disagree that the issue of damages or breach of any duty would be foreclosed. By the time the summary judgment was being considered, sufficient information would have been before the trial court, had it concluded an attorney-client relationship existed, to require further review. These circumstances could have been apparent at least as early as when the Motion to Add Kuhlman/SI to the workers' compensation claim was filed on August 26, 1992 by L&S as attorney for Kuhlman Electric. L&S had knowledge to support its theory that the August 20, 1991 injury, allegedly worsening the condition of Burgess, may have been a new injury. The record implies these conclusions were communicated to Amerisure and possibly others but not the client, Kuhlman Electric. And because the workers' compensation claim was held in abeyance from November 20, 1992, until January 23, 1996, Kuhlman/SI may not have focused on the medical-legal issues to support its own defense of the second reopening claim since Kuhlman/SI could have reasonably expected to believe it could rely on its attorney, L&S, to keep it informed. At a minimum, L&S should have been expected to share its conclusions and impressions of the claim with Kuhlman Electric, its client. If L&S had informed Kuhlman/SI of its impressions, Kuhlman Electric may not have been found to have been estopped to raise reasonable and valuable defenses to this new injury theory, and, thereby avoid the results of the adverse ruling. Alternatively, on review, the trier of fact might find Kuhlman/SI had sufficient information and it could have been more diligent when it was added as a party self-insured. Either way, such circumstances and questions were sufficient to allow proof of causation and any damages. Apparently in 1992, L&S had resolved in its own mind its theory of multiple identities was acceptable, to believe no conflict of interest occurred in its continuing to represent Kuhlman Electric either as a client or as a former client. This theory, while providing protection to attorneys from conflict of interest claims, does nothing to give a client confidence in the profession exclusively charged with representing the client's interest before adversarial tribunals (nor in the settlement of claims).