The Texas Supreme Court is officially on summer break from issuing new opinions, but when it returns, justices plan to hear oral arguments in four cases involving lawyers or law firms.

The cases raise issues about the practice of law, such as when a tolling rule applies to legal malpractice claims, the propriety of pretrial public opinion polling, and the affirmative defense of attorney immunity.

Here are the four cases to add to calendars, read backgrounds and review the parties' Supreme Court briefs.

Will Photo: Shutterstock
|

Gray v. Skelton 

Background: Attorney Patricia Skelton was charged with forging the will of her deceased client and filing it in his probate case. She hired criminal-defense attorney Guy James Gray to represent her in a 2007 trial. Skelton was convicted. Separately, the probate case progressed and a jury in 2009 found the will was valid, Skelton didn't act with intent to defraud or harm in altering the will, and the will was an accurate copy. In 2004, the Fourth Court of Appeals granted Skelton habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded her criminal case for a new trial. The state dismissed the charge in 2015. Skelton sued Gray in 2016. Gray filed and won a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a motion to dismiss, arguing her legal malpractice claim was barred by the Peeler doctrine, which allows exonerated people to bring legal mal claims, and both claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals found the Peeler doctrine doesn't apply and that under the Hughes doctrine, Skelton's case limitations would begin to run at the event that “exonerated” her, which happened in 2014. The Hughes rule arose in the 1991 Texas Supreme Court ruling in Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, which says in legal malpractice cases the statute of limitations is tolled until appeals on the underlying case are over.

Oral argument: Sept. 26

cargo ship Photo: Aun Photographer/Shutterstock.com
|

Erikson v. Renda 

Background: Oscar Renda sued lawyer Brian Erikson and Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser for legal malpractice, alleging that Erikson in 2002 neglected a deadline to appeal an underlying case between the United States and Renda's company, Renda Marine Inc., over a Houston-Galveston ship channel dredging contract. Renda Marine saw an $11.8 million loss. Renda also claimed Erikson approved transferring Renda Marine's assets to corporate creditors without including the United States' claim. Later, the government learned about the asset transfers, and sued Renda personally, alleging a violation of the priority act, which imposes liability for debtors who paid other debt first instead of the government. A court entered a judgment against Renda for over $12 million. In the resulting legal malpractice case, the trial court granted summary judgment for Erikson, based partly on an argument that the state of limitations barred the claim. The case also involves a question about the Hughes tolling rule. The Seventh Court of Appeals ruled that Erikson didn't prove he was entitled to summary judgment based on his limitations argument. It reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Renda.

Oral argument: Sept. 26