New Tools for Defeating Nonclient Suits Against Lawyers
Recent Texas Supreme Court rulings have supplied some tools for lawyers who find themselves having to defend themselves from malpractice lawsuits by pro se litigants.
August 30, 2018 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Nonsense lawsuits against lawyers by pro se litigants can be costly and require an exuberant amount of effort and time. But recent Texas Supreme Court rulings have supplied some tools for lawyers in those situations.
In Youngkin v. Hines, the court determined in an April decision, that a lawyer who was sued for fraud not only had immunity, but could also use Texas' anti-SLAPP statute to win both dismissal and attorney fees. The ruling demonstrated how the Texas Citizens Participation Act—designed to protect citizens from lawsuits that attack free speech—can be used to raise a lawyer's qualified immunity defense.
Youngkin v. Hines comes just three years after another key ruling, Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd in 2015. In that case, the court held that qualified immunity protects a lawyer from a nonclient's lawsuit so long as the claim arises from the lawyer “doing what lawyers do.” The court noted that it doesn't matter how the plaintiff phrases the claim—fraud, conspiracy, etc.—as long as the lawyer was doing the work of a lawyer immunity should be provided.
This begs the question: “What do lawyers do?” If a lawyer was engaged to represent a client, and was acting in the context of an attorney-client relationship, then the lawyer is immune from being sued by strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
Bottom line: the Texas Supreme Court in Cantey Hanger held that it doesn't matter what label a plaintiff puts on its cause of action; the key is what activities the lawyer performed. So long as there was an attorney-client relationship, and the lawyer is being sued for what was done in the furtherance of that relationship, then qualified immunity applies. Of course, there are exceptions, but absent such exceptions, the lawyer should win summary judgment. Under Cantey Hanger, a lawyer being sued by a nonclient who moves for summary judgment should support the defense by providing an affidavit explaining his/her representation of the client and outlining how actions taken supported that relationship.
But what about the lawyer's time away from the practice while dealing with such nonsense? What if the judge wrongfully denies summary judgment?
Enter this year's Youngkin v. Hines. In April 2018, the Texas Supreme Court dealt with a claim of attorney qualified immunity raised by attorney Bill Youngkin who was sued by his clients' opponents for putting a settlement on the record that he purportedly knew his clients would never complete. Youngkin raised the qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss pursuant to the TCPA. However, Youngkin, did not file an affidavit as required under Cantey Hangar. The appellate court then held that anti-SLAPP applied, but denied Youngkin's motion to dismiss because he did not “prove up” his qualified immunity defense.
Youngkin's argument for why anti-SLAPP should apply was that his actions were something that lawyers regularly do and were part of his client's constitutional right to petition the government.
The opposing parties argued that the anti-SLAPP statute was unavailable to Youngkin because he was not pursuing his constitutional right to petition the government—he was pursuing only his clients' rights—and that pursuing someone else's constitutional rights doesn't cut the mustard. Moreover, they argued, Youngkin failed to prove up via affidavit that he was acting for a client at the time of the allegedly bad act and thus attorney-qualified immunity was not supported by the evidence.
Justice Debra Lehrmann disagreed, noting that Youngkin's act of putting the settlement on the record was indeed part of the “right to petition” under the TCPA as it involved the making or submitting of a statement or document in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding. More importantly, the court noted that the Legislature explicitly and expansively defined the term “exercise of the right to petition” in the TCPA. Thus, the court determined that it would be improper to inject a requirement that each action complained about must somehow, in and of itself, be constitutionally guaranteed: “Whether that definition maps perfectly onto the external constitutional rights it aims to protect is irrelevant; we are bound by the statutory definition for the purposes of the TCPA.”
Because the TCPA applied, the court considered whether it mattered if plaintiffs could prove the elements of their claims. The court concluded that it did not matter as they could not overcome the preclusive effect of attorney-qualified immunity.
While, the court in Cantey Hangar stated that the desired method for proving that the defendant lawyer was doing “what lawyers do” was by affidavit. Here, the court noted that although the burden was on Youngkin to prove his defense of qualified immunity, all he had to do was show 1. the type of conduct at issue and, 2. whether that conduct was in the scope of representation. The court stated: “Though it would have been better practice for Youngkin to have submitted an affidavit attesting to those necessary facts, it does not prevent him from proving his defense under the circumstances of this case.”
Takeaway: The TCPA can be used to raise a lawyer's qualified immunity defense. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion stays discovery in the case. A quick hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion is mandated. And, if the lawyer wins, he/she can get an award of attorney fees. If the lawyer loses the motion, an expedited interlocutory appeal is allowed.
Law practices make money from doing what lawyers do best. A lawyer defending against one of these lawsuits should hire an attorney who does this type of work. Don't allow the “cost of doing business” to become a time killer. Moreover, after Youngkin, attorney fees may be recovered.
Houston lawyer Gregg Weinberg, a shareholder with Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey, heads the firm's professional liability, litigation and arbitration sections.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMexico's Judicial Reforms and the Implications for Foreign Investors
5 minute readTexas Supreme Court Lets Drunk Drivers Take the Fifth After Drinking a Fifth
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250