Flatow v. Ingalls,___N.E.2d___, 2010 WL 3218519 (Ind. App. 2010)

Brief Summary
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that a lawyer was not liable for malpractice, despite failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment, because the attorney’s engagement agreement limited the scope of representation to tasks that did not include such a response.

Complete Summary
The issue in this legal malpractice action was the effect of an underlying agreement limiting the scope of the relationship between the parties. The lawyer and client specifically agreed that the attorney would draft a motion for summary judgment and a reply brief, and nothing more. The lawyer then filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The opposing party filed both a brief in opposition to the motion as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment. The lawyer failed to respond to both filings, and the court granted the opposing party’s motion. The client then brought this legal malpractice action based on the attorney’s failure to respond.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the lawyer because the client failed to establish the duty and proximate cause elements of legal malpractice. The court began by noting that Indiana RPC 1.2(c) allows agreements limiting the scope of representation, provided they are reasonable and the client gives informed consent. Regarding the attorney’s failure to respond to the opposing party’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that the lawyer had no duty to respond given the limited scope of representation. The engagement agreement, the court noted, called for the attorney to perform two specific tasks, neither of which involved responding to a motion for summary judgment. Regarding the lawyer’s failure to reply to the opposing party’s response — a task which the attorney had agreed to undertake — the court held that the client did not establish any harm from the lawyer’s breach because the client had not alleged any supplemental evidence that could have been included in the reply and altered the outcome.

Significance of Opinion
This opinion demonstrates that lawyers can narrowly limit the scope of representation and therefore limit the scope of potential malpractice liability. But such limitations must be reasonable and clearly articulated—both for purposes of obtaining informed client consent and of ensuring proper contract interpretation by the court.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.

REGISTER NOW for the Tenth Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference and receive a 10% Early Bird Discount before December 1, 2010

Attend the Tenth Anniversary of the industry's premier event focused on current and important developments in the law and litigation of malpractice claims, legal malpractice insurance and risk management strategies. Each conference panel examines recent case law and significant developments throughout the last year. One and one-half days will be devoted to legal malpractice (February 16-17), and one and one-half days will be devoted to risk management (February 17-18). The Conference will be held in Chicago at The Westin Chicago River North Hotel.

Earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit, including up to 6.50 ethics credit!

Conference Topics

Legal Malpractice Sessions (February 16-17) 

• Settle and Sue: Is Legal Malpractice a Remedy for An Inappropriate Settlement or for the Settlement That Did Not Happen?
• What You Need to Know About Lawyers’ Liability Under the Federal and State Securities Laws
• Establishing a Fiduciary Breach
• Using Pretrial Remedies — Anti-SLAPP Statutes, and Other Evidentiary Early Disposition Motions
• Significant Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims
• Insurance Law
• Stump the Panel

Legal Malpractice/Risk Management Cross-Over Sessions (February 17)

• The Insurance Marketplace and Considerations
• Who is a “Partner” — The Legal Implications of Titles
• Mitigating or Avoiding the Loss

Risk Management Sessions (February 17-18)

• The General Counsel Forum
• Don’t Ignore the “Basics” — Engagement, Disengagement and End-of-Representation Letters
• The Growing Threats to Client (and Firm) Data — Managing Technology to Meet the Challenges
• High Tech Tools — and Traps — for Mergers and Lateral Hiring
• On the Horizon: Is Susskind Right? Technology and the Future of Large Law Firms

Registration Fees

$1,300 for the Entire Conference — February 16-18
$925 for the Legal Malpractice Sessions Only — February 16-17
$925 for the Risk Management Sessions Only — February 17-18

Discounts (maximum 15% discount per registration)
Returning registrants receive 5% off the conference price
Multiple registrants receive 15% off when two or more colleagues from the same company register for the conference
Early birds receive 10% until December 1, 2010

For more information, please visit www.LMRM.com or click here to Register Now!

To speak with the Conference Planner, Katherine McCormack, please call 312-704-3329