Opinion ID: 852525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Malpractice Chose in Action

Text: In Picadilly, we held that legal malpractice claims are not assignable. Two primary policy concerns drove that conclusion: the need to preserve the sanctity of the client-lawyer relationship, and the disreputable public role reversal that would result during the trial of assigned malpractice claims. Id. at 342. We observed that assigning such claims would almost certainly result in the merchandizing [of] such causes of action . . . which would encourage unjustified lawsuits against members of the legal profession, generate an increase in legal malpractice litigation, promote champerty and force attorneys to defend themselves against strangers. Id. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages of such assignments, we barred assignment of legal malpractice claims, noting clients may still make these claims directly against their attorneys, but they cannot assign their choses in action. Id. at 345. Perkins signed a general assignment to the Estate that included an assignment of any claim Perkins might have against his personal attorney Susong. The Estate then used the assignment to sue Susong, alleging negligence and breach of duty to defend Perkins. The complaint contended that Susong breached his duty of care owed to Perkins by failing to inform him that Stephenson had a conflict and by failing to require State Farm to appoint alternative counsel. Although Perkins could directly file a complaint against Susong, or Stephenson for that matter, Perkins cannot assign this opportunity against either of his attorneys. As we explained in Picadilly, such assignments would likely be very harmful to the lawyer-client relationship. 582 N.E.2d at 345. [9] Perkins' assignment of this claim is invalid.