Opinion ID: 1171472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instructions Regarding Attorney Conduct.

Text: HT argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the trial court refused to give the jury certain proposed instructions concerning attorney malpractice. Specifically, HT wanted the trial court to: first, instruct the jury that an attorney's conduct cannot be judged by subsequent case law and that an attorney must be judged under circumstances similar to those existing at the time of the conduct; and, second, provide the jury with proposed clarifying instructions. In light of the trial court's actual instructions and because the issue of whether an attorney's conduct should be judged by subsequent case law was not raised before the jury, we hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to provide the jury with HT's proposed instructions. On the issue of attorney negligence, the trial court's instruction provided in part: An attorney is negligent in the representation of a client if he breaches the required standard of care by failing to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other attorneys commonly possess and would exercise under similar circumstances... . An attorney is not necessarily negligent because he makes errors in judgment or because his efforts are unsuccessful. An attorney is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to his failure to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other attorneys commonly possess and would exercise under similar circumstances. (Emphasis added.) During HT's presentation of its case, HT's expert witness testified that the required standard of care for an attorney is to analyze the law that is in existence at that time. ... [and] to exercise the diligence, skill, competence, prudence of a lawyer who is in similar practice here in Anchorage. [52] (Emphasis added.) HT did not cite to any instances where either Bohna or Allstate offered evidence that an attorney should be judged by subsequent case law. Thus, there was no need for the trial court to give the jury HT's proposed instruction on attorney negligence because the issue of whether HT should be judged by subsequent case law was never presented to the jury. As mentioned, HT also claims that the trial court erred by not providing the jury with proposed clarifying instructions. HT argues that because the trial court instructed the jury that it had ruled that Allstate had breached its duty of care to Bohna, the jury may have been confused into thinking that the trial court's ruling applied to HT as well. [53] HT claims it was further prejudiced from instances of opposing counsel eliciting testimony which allegedly suggested that HT was at fault for not making a policy limits offer. We hold that the trial court's actual instructions adequately dealt with any possible confusion. On the issue of duty, the trial court's instruction provided in part: The court has ruled in this case that Allstate had certain duties to Bohna in this case and that it breached those duties. The court's rulings are based upon the policy language and the law which interprets those duties... . These rulings of the court regarding Allstate, however, do not establish any duties owed by [HT] to Phillip Bohna. The duties owed by [HT] to Bohna are established by the expert testimony which you have heard in this case. The jury must evaluate and weigh the expert testimony to decide first what duties were owed by [HT]; secondly, which, if any, of those duties were breached; and thirdly, whether those breaches legally caused loss to Bohna. (Emphasis added.) The trial court further instructed the jury: The insurance policy issued to Bohna provided coverage which had a dollar value to him. This dollar value is called policy limits. It is the duty of an insurance company to determine the dollar value of its policy limits. No one else has the duty to determine the dollar value of the policy limits for an insurance company. (Underline in original, italics added.) These instructions clearly informed the jury that the trial court's ruling as to Allstate's breach of duty did not apply to HT, and that HT was not responsible for determining the value of policy limits nor making a policy limits offer. [54] As such, they were highly favorable to HT, since Allstate contended that it was relying on HT to advise it as to what policy limits would be given the uniqueness of Alaska law regarding court awarded attorney's fees. Moreover, the instructions proposed by HT would not have substantially clarified any confusion which may have existed. HT's proposed Instruction 8 would have advised the jury that an attorney is not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers, and that, prior to 1988, rational disagreement was possible as to what comprised a tender of policy limits. This adds little if anything to the trial court's actual instruction which informed the jury that [n]o one [besides the insurance company] has the duty to determine the dollar value of the policy limits for an insurance company. As for HT's other proposed instructions, they would not have aided HT in this regard. [55] We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in denying HT's proposed clarifying instructions.