Opinion ID: 2425009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indirect Privity

Text: It is undisputed that the children in this case did not have a contract for legal representation with Mr. Pettus. Hence, the trial court dismissed the children's claims for lack of privity as required by section 16-22-310. On appeal, the children raise two arguments in an attempt to satisfy the privity requirement. First, the children claim that they were in privity with the decedent, James McDonald, who in turn was in privity with Mr. Pettus. We find no basis for this argument of indirect privity in the plain language of the lawyer-immunity statute or in our cases interpreting the Act. Furthermore, the two Arkansas cases cited by the children are unpersuasive because both merely dealt with the issue of whether heirs are in privity with a decedent, and not with the second and more important issue of whether this connection is enough to create privity with the decedent's attorney under the lawyer-immunity statute. See Hardie v. Estate of Davis, 312 Ark. 189, 848 S.W.2d 417 (1993); Brown v. Imboden, 28 Ark.App. 127, 771 S.W.2d 312 (1989). In fact, neither case even mentions the lawyer-immunity statute. We are equally unpersuaded by the children's citations to cases from other jurisdictions because Arkansas has a specific statute, which we have narrowly interpreted to require direct privity. How other jurisdictions have interpreted their immunity statutes that may or may not be similar to our statute is simply irrelevant. For these reasons, we reject the children's indirect-privity argument and hold that under the lawyer-immunity statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-22-310, a plaintiff must be in direct privity with the attorney or entity being sued for legal malpractice.