Court Opinion

ID: 9730819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:25:04.581317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:09.610095
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). In ruling on the motion for fees under sec. 814.025, Stats. 1979-80, the trial court found that Johnson “completely ignored his obligations under that contract which he had signed to be responsible for the maintenance and whatever repairs were necessary on this carpeting for a period of one year.” The majority notes that this finding is not challenged on appeal. This finding raises the issue which I think the majority does not fully consider, whether “the reasonable attorney” and “the reasonable party” would have concluded that Johnson’s claim for loss of profits was foreclosed under the doctrine of contributory negligence or the doctrine of avoidable losses. See Prosser, Law of Torts sec. 65, pp. 422-424 (4th ed. 1971). Under these doctrines Johnson can be denied recovery for loss of profits because he failed to exercise due care to protect his own interests. The reasonable inference from the record, as I read the record, is that Johnson could have avoided loss of bidding privileges if he had fulfilled his contract obligations, the cost of which was minor compared to the potential harm and the cost of which Johnson could have recovered from the other parties involved.
*606I believe Johnson’s claim for loss of profits rests on a very weak basis. Nevertheless, applying the objective standard set forth in Sommer v. Carr, 99 Wis.2d 789, 299 N.W.2d 856 (1981), to the facts in this case, I concur in the decision of the majority.
In Sommer v. Carr, supra, the court pointed out a similarity in policy, purpose, and language between the attorney’s duties, responsibilities and liabilities under sec. 814.025, Stats. 1979-80, DR 7-102A (1) (a) of the Attorneys Code of Professional Responsibility, 43 Wis.2d xi (1970), SCR 20.36 (1980), and the attorneys oath, sec. 757.27, Stats. 1979-80. This case points out another relation between the attorney’s obligations under the Code and his liability under sec. 814.025, Stats. DR 2-409 and DR 2-110, 43 Wis.2d xxx (1970), SCR 20.15, 20.16 (1980), govern the lawyer’s acceptance and withdrawal from employment and provide as follows:
“DR 2-109 Acceptance of Employment.
“ (A) A lawyer shall not accept employment on behalf of a person if he knows or it is obvious that such person wishes to:
“(1) Bring a legal action, conduct a defense, or assert a position in litigation, or otherwise have steps taken for him, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.
“ (2) Present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
“DR 2-110 Withdrawal from Employment.
“ (A) In general.
“(1) If permission for withdrawal from employment is required by the rules of a tribunal, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employ*607ment in a proceeding before that tribunal without its permission.
“(2) In any event, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until he has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his client, including giving due notice to his client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and complying with applicable laws and rules.
“ (3) A lawyer who withdraws from employment shall refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned.
“(B) Mandatory withdrawal.
“A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal, with its permission if required by its rules, shall withdraw from employment, and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:
“ (1) He knows or it is obvious that his client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken for him, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.
“(2) He knows or it is obvious that his continued employment will result in violation of a Disciplinary Rule.
“(3) His mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively.
“ (4) He is discharged by his client.
“(C) Permissive withdrawal.
If DR 2-110 (B) is not applicable, a lawyer may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because:
*608“(1) His client:
“ (a) Insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
“(b) Personally seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct.
“(c) Insists that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under the Disciplinary Rules.
“(d) By other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively.
“(e) Insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the lawyer engage in conduct that is contrary to the j udgment and advice of the lawyer but not prohibited under the Disciplinary Rules.
“(f) Deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees.
“ (2) His continued employment is likely to result in a violation of a Disciplinary Rule.
“(3) His inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal.
“(4) His mental or physical condition renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively.
“ (5) His client knowingly and freely assents to termination of his employment.
“ (6) He believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.”
See also EC 2-30 and EC 2-32, 43 Wis.2d xxii (1970), SCR 20.06(8) (e) (g) (1980).
The lawyer’s obligation to comply with the Code and the lawyer’s desire to avoid the adverse, financial consequences imposed under sec. 814.025 may conflict.
*609In this case the lawyer urged the client to dismiss part of the client’s claim. The client insisted on prosecuting the claim, and the lawyer complied with the client’s wishes. Had the court held the claim frivolous, several questions would arise. When the attorney advises the client not to proceed, should the costs and fees be imposed solely on the client and not on the lawyer? If the attorney believes part of the client’s claim is frivolous, is he or she compelled to withdraw from employment in order to avoid liability under sec. 814.025? Is the attorney’s withdrawal consonant with the attorney’s obligations under the Code? The Code of Professional Responsibilities and sec. 814.025, Stats. 1979-80, are in some respects related, but the nature of the relationship is far from clear.