Francine Crowell sued Stephen M. Katz, her former attorney, for damages, alleging that his malpractice resulted in the dismissal of her wrongful termination claim against a former employer. Katz defaulted; thus, his liability was deemed admitted and the only issue in dispute was Crowell’s damages. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Crowell was entitled to compensatory damages for legal fees she had paid Katz and for backpay she had sought in the wrongful termination case. The trial court also awarded punitive damages and attorney fees. On appeal, Katz argues that the award for backpay was erroneous in light of evidence which he contends supports a finding that Crowell had failed to inform her former employer of a prior criminal allegation against her. He further argues that a reversal of the award of backpay will necessarily result in a reversal of the award of punitive damages and attorney fees.1 We find no error and affirm. While we apply a de novo standard of review to any questions of law decided by the trial court, factual findings made after a bench trial shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. OCGA § 9-11-52 a. Because the clearly erroneous test is in effect the same standard as the any evidence rule, appellate courts will not disturb fact findings of a trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them. Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted. Washington v. Harrison , 299 Ga. App. 335, 336 682 SE2d 679 2009. So construed, the evidence presented during the bench trial showed that Crowell engaged Katz in September 2005 for the purpose of filing an action for wrongful termination against Deloitte Services LP, her former employer. Crowell paid Katz a retainer in the amount of $10,000. Katz filed a complaint on Crowell’s behalf in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that Deloitte had terminated Crowell for an unlawful racially discriminatory reason.
When the litigation commenced, the district judge sent counsel, including Katz, a document entitled “Instructions to Litigants.” The document included various case management rules and advised the attorneys of certain procedural requirements and other guidelines generally governing their conduct during the course of the case.
