Opinion ID: 2014876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: effect of assignment

Text: The first step in analyzing the propriety of summary judgment in this case is to determine what effect, if any, the purported assignment of the malpractice claims to Abbott has on the suit. The document in question is titled Assignment, and is reproduced here in its entirety: FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE ABBOTT BANK (TAB) does hereby agree to assign to JAMES E. ABBOTT (Abbott) all right, title, and interest to any proceeds or recoveries from a cause of action captioned The Abbott Bank v. Howard Olsen, et al. filed in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska (the Action). Abbott agrees to bring and prosecute the Action solely for the benefit of and on behalf of TAB or the shareholders of Abbott Bank Group, Inc., on May 10, 1995. Abbott agrees to receive and to hold any proceeds and recoveries from the Action as a fiduciary, for distribution to said shareholders pro rata in accordance with their respective interests in the Merger Consideration provided for in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November, [sic] 28, 1994, between Abbott Bank Group, Inc. and Community First Bankshares, Inc. Abbott agrees to indemnify and hold TAB harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which it may become subject to [sic] as a result of or in connection with the Action, including any claim or counterclaim against TAB, and to reimburse TAB for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection therewith. This assignment was dated May 10, 1995, and signed by Abbott as chairman of the Bank and as assignee. A claim for legal malpractice cannot be assigned, because of public policy considerations concerning the personal nature and confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship. Earth Science Labs. v. Adkins & Wondra, P.C., 246 Neb. 798, 523 N.W.2d 254 (1994). We find that because this document grants both the proceeds of this action and the right to prosecute it, it is an assignment of the cause of action. To hold otherwise would undermine the same public policy rationale upon which we decided Earth Science Labs. v. Adkins & Wondra, P.C., supra . As an assignment of a cause of action for malpractice, this document violates public policy and the rule enunciated in Earth Science Labs. v. Adkins & Wondra, P. C., supra . Therefore, we hold that the document is void in its entirety. The question remains, however, as to what effect this holding has on the trial court's granting of summary judgment. Although in Earth Science Labs. v. Adkins & Wondra, P.C., supra , we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claim, we cannot do so in this case. In Earth Science Labs., the claim belonged to Sorber Chemical, Inc., and the invalid assignment was to Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. Earth Science had brought the suit under its own name after acquiring Sorber's assets at a bankruptcy sale. When the assignment was found to be invalid, Earth Science ceased to be the proper plaintiff. The petition could not be corrected by amendment because Sorber no longer existed to prosecute the claim. In the present case, it is clear that suit was brought in the name of CFSB, the real party in interest. CFSB allowed this suit in its name under the erroneous legal impression that the assignment to Abbott was valid. Although the affidavits of Knutson and Foss seem to indicate that CFSB has no interest at all in suing Olsen and the Firm, the phrase in these affidavits aside from this litigation creates a fact question as to whether CFSB has an interest in pursuing the present litigation. Because of this question as to CFSB's intention to proceed with the lawsuit, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of this action and remand the cause for such further action as CFSB may wish to take.