Opinion ID: 1549090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial-Within -A-Trial Doctrine

Text: The trial-within-a-trial doctrine is the accepted and traditional means of resolving issues involved in the underlying proceeding in a legal malpractice action. Thomas, 351 Md. at 533, 718 A.2d at 1197 ( quoting Ronald E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 32.8 (4th ed. 1998 Supp.)). It should be applied where there is no bright line malpractice. Cf. Thomas, 351 Md. at 520, 718 A.2d at 1190 (describing doctrine as proper in a settlement malpractice action because there is a range for honest differences of opinion in making settlement recommendations, and that, accordingly, a recommendation to settle or not to settle on particular terms is not malpractice simply because another lawyer, or even many other lawyers, would not have made the same recommendation under the alleged circumstances.) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial-within-a-trial doctrine is summarized in Section 53 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers. Comment b to that section (Action by a civil litigant: loss of a judgment) provides in relevant part: In a lawyer-negligence or fiduciary-breach action brought by one who was the plaintiff in a former and unsuccessful civil action, the plaintiff usually seeks to recover as damages the damages that would have been recovered in the previous action or the additional amount that would have been recovered but for the defendant's misconduct. To do so, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for the defendant lawyer's misconduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable judgment in the previous action. The plaintiff must thus prevail in a trial within a trial. All the issues that would have been litigated in the previous action are litigated between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's former lawyer, with the latter taking the place and bearing the burdens that properly would have fallen on the defendant in the original action. Similarly, the plaintiff bears the burden the plaintiff would have borne in the original trial.... Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 53 cmt. b (2000). The trial-within-a-trial doctrine exposes what the result `should have been' or what the result `would have been' had the lawyer's negligence not occurred. Ronald E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 35:12 (2010). Suder argues that the trial-within-a-trial doctrine cannot be utilized here, where the underlying case has been litigated because history has already established Downes's course of action, which was to challenge the request for a fifth extension rather than the first extension. As support, she cites several cases in which courts have applied the doctrine to investigate allegations that the attorney's malpractice prevented a trial from ever taking place. See Thomas, 351 Md. at 513, 718 A.2d at 1187 (attorney negligently advised his clients to settle rather than proceed to trial); Central Cab Co. v. Clarke, 259 Md. 542, 270 A.2d 662 (1970) (ordering additional proceedings where the client could prove that it had a meritorious defense in the underlying matter and thus the default judgment resulting from the attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of the client's damages); Bongiorno v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 417 Mass. 396, 630 N.E.2d 274 (1994) (attorney's malpractice resulted in dismissal of client's claim). These cases, however, do not say that the doctrine is limited to no-trial situations, as Suder contends. Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (The case-within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney's alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash.App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) ([T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client's cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney's negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.). Furthermore, Suder's rationale does not comport with the purpose of the doctrine, which, as stated above, is to determine what would have occurred had Whiteford timely filed the petition for the fifth extension. Thus, the question is whether Downes would have challenged the validity of the first extension had Whiteford timely filed the fifth request for extension. The trial-within-a-trial doctrine is designed to resolve that question. We are not persuaded otherwise by Suder's interpretation of Section 53 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers. Comment b to that section provides in relevant part: The plaintiff in a previous civil action may recover without proving the results of a trial if the party claims damages other than loss of a judgment. For example, a lawyer who negligently discloses a client's trade secret during litigation might be liable for harm to the client's business caused by the disclosure. Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 53 cmt. b (2000). Suder narrowly interprets the Restatement's loss of a judgment to mean the loss of the chance to litigate at all. We see nothing in Comment b that proposes such a limitation. Rather, the example provided by the Restatement suggests that when the plaintiff is damaged in a way other than receipt of a less favorable judgment, the trial-within-a-trial approach is not necessary to prove malpractice. Ultimately, the triggering mechanism for the trial-within-a-trial doctrine is a dispute over proximate cause, not whether the client lost the chance of a trial. As causation is the question in this case, we agree with the CSA that the doctrine should be applied.