Court Opinion

ID: 9669097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:39:28.354728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.378328
License: Public Domain

SPAIN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The trial court, in my opinion, correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the document dated January 23, 1989, served as a waiver and, thereby, disposed of the issue concerning the allegation under Count I of *315legal malpractice. Accordingly, the allegations under Count II of fraud and a failure to disclose were, likewise, disposed of by the waiver. The January 23, 1989, document was a written agreement acknowledging the obvious conflicts of interest of Ms. McKinstry; viz., the fact that she was representing both parties at their request and that she was the spouse of Mr. Rood. Mr. Conrad, an experienced businessman who had attended law school for two years, knowingly signed this waiver. It is inconceivable to me that Mr. Conrad could ever have expected Ms. MeKinstry, under the circumstances, to advise him independently of an instability in her husband’s finances.
Whether the January 28, 1989, document was signed in January or at the closing in August is not, to me, material. It is clear from the document that Mr. Conrad was fully aware of all conflicts and “waived” those conflicts.
In preparing the document, an act Ms. MeKinstry was employed to do for the convenience and thrift of both parties, the drafter could not be guilty of any conduct constituting legal negligence stemming from her mere assistance in reducing to writing the economic terms which the parties, themselves, negotiated. Importantly, Ms. MeKinstry did not negotiate for either party, and that was made clear from the onset.
Furthermore, I am concerned with the statement of the majority that this “waiver” signed by Conrad cannot, as a matter of law, preclude a trial upon the issues raised by the verified complaint of appellant. Such a conclusion is premature. Certainly further proof could be adduced prior to trial demonstrating conclusively that Conrad’s claims of legal negligence were effectively waived. It is misleading to imply otherwise.
In sum, I agree with the trial judge’s finding that the activities of Taft MeKinstry and Fowler, Measle and Bell were only in the form of document preparation. Because Mr. Conrad and Mr. Rood were fully aware of all conflicts and “waived” those conflicts, there were no facts to support a claim for legal negligence. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
COMBS and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join this dissent.