Court Opinion

ID: 13904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:31:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:15.445399
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       for the Fifth Circuit

               _____________________________________

                            No. 97-20725
                          Summary Calendar
               _____________________________________

                          FRANK ATUAHENE,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellant,

                               VERSUS

               ARCHER, WALDNER & VICKERY, L.L.P. and
                   LAURIE PLEASANT, Individually,

                                             Defendants-Appellees.

     ______________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                         (H-96-CV-3989)
     ______________________________________________________

                        December 29, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In this appeal, Atuahene challenges the district court's

dismissal on summary judgment of his legal malpractice action

against former counsel.   Atuahene engaged the appellee law firm to

represent him in pursuing a medical malpractice claim against a

dentist.   In the underlying malpractice action, counsel filed suit

and conducted discovery. Atuahene's action against the dentist was

settled for $25,000 and Atuahene consented to the settlement and

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
accepted his share of the settlement funds.      Summary judgment

evidence also established that at the time Atuahene approved the

settlement he was aware of the allegedly negligent acts of his

attorney.

     Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court's

conclusion that under Texas law where a plaintiff agrees to a

settlement with the knowledge of the allegedly negligent acts of

his lawyer, the decision to settle severs the causal link between

the lawyer's conduct and the settlement terms.     See Campbell v.

Wiltshire, 1996 WL 400110 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 18,

1996, writ denied).

     Appellant raises a number of new issues for the first time on

appeal, which we decline to consider.

     Because the district court correctly granted summary judgment,

its judgment is affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.

                                2