Ang v. Martin
114 P.3d 637 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action arising from representation in a criminal case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence their actual innocence of the underlying criminal charges as an essential element of the claim.
Facts:
- Psychiatrist Jessy Ang and his wife Editha Ang, owners of Evergreen Medical Panel, Inc., became subjects of a federal investigation into fraud.
- In February 1994, a search of Dr. Ang's office revealed two sets of signed tax returns that reported conflicting income amounts.
- The Angs were arrested in April 1996 and indicted a year later on 18 criminal counts, including tax and bank fraud.
- They retained attorneys Richard Hansen and Michael G. Martin to represent them in the criminal proceedings.
- During their December 1997 trial, on the advice of Hansen and Martin, the Angs agreed to plead guilty to two of the 18 counts.
- After consulting with new counsel, the Angs successfully moved to withdraw their guilty pleas before they were formally accepted by the court.
- Represented by their new attorneys, the Angs proceeded to a bench trial in September 1999 and were acquitted on all 18 criminal counts.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessy and Editha Ang filed a legal malpractice action against their former attorneys, Richard Hansen and Michael G. Martin, in Pierce County Superior Court (a trial court).
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court instructed the jury that to prevail, the Angs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were innocent of the underlying criminal charges.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that the Angs had not proven their innocence but also found that defendant Martin had been negligent.
- Based on the verdict, judgment was entered against the Angs, who then appealed (as appellants) to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Angs (as petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a legal malpractice action arising from a criminal defense representation, must a plaintiff who was ultimately acquitted prove their actual innocence of the underlying charges as an element of their claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Owens, J.
Yes, a plaintiff in a criminal malpractice action must prove their actual innocence of the underlying charges by a preponderance of the evidence. An acquittal in the criminal proceeding, which only signifies that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, does not satisfy this requirement. The court distinguished between 'legal innocence' (the result of a criminal trial) and 'actual innocence' (a factual determination in a civil trial). Proving actual innocence is essential to establishing proximate causation; unless the plaintiff is actually innocent, their own criminal acts, not the attorney's alleged negligence, are the cause-in-fact of their harm. Furthermore, public policy requires this rule to prevent criminals from profiting from their own wrongdoing, to maintain respect for the justice system, and to avoid a chilling effect on the criminal defense bar.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
No, the standard for legal malpractice in criminal cases should be the same as in civil cases, without the additional requirement for the plaintiff to prove actual innocence. The traditional four-part test for malpractice (duty, breach, causation, damage) is sufficient. Adding an 'actual innocence' element creates a higher, unjust burden on plaintiffs and effectively immunizes criminal defense attorneys from accountability for their negligence, inviting a lower standard of care. The central question should remain one of causation—whether the attorney's negligence, not the client's guilt or innocence, caused the harm. The constitution's guarantee of adequate representation is the controlling public policy, not the judicially created policy of protecting lawyers.
Concurring in dissent - Alexander, C.J.
No, the trial court erred in requiring the Angs to prove their innocence. If a plaintiff's guilt is relevant, it should be treated as an affirmative defense that the defendant attorney must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. This approach aligns with traditional tort principles where defendants bear the burden of proving defenses like comparative negligence. It also respects the presumption of innocence and relieves the plaintiff of the nearly impossible task of proving a negative, while still addressing the policy concern that guilty individuals should not profit from their own illegal acts.
Concurring in dissent - Chambers, J.
No, the majority's 'actual innocence' requirement is a special protection for lawyers that undermines professional accountability. All professionals, including doctors and accountants, owe a duty of care to their clients, regardless of whether the client is sick or has questionable finances; lawyers likewise owe a duty to both the innocent and the guilty. An attorney's role often involves mitigating harm or ensuring the state meets its burden, not just proving absolute innocence. This rule creates an almost impossible hurdle for plaintiffs and provides nearly absolute immunity to negligent criminal defense attorneys, which is contrary to the public interest in deterring professional misconduct.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'actual innocence' rule as a mandatory element for criminal malpractice claims in Washington, aligning the state with a majority of jurisdictions. By doing so, the court significantly increases the plaintiff's burden, making such lawsuits more difficult to win than typical civil malpractice actions. The ruling creates a strong public policy shield for criminal defense attorneys, reasoning that a client's own criminal conduct is the ultimate cause of their harm unless they can affirmatively prove their innocence in the subsequent civil suit. This precedent effectively requires an acquitted defendant to win a 'trial within a trial' on the merits of the original criminal charges, but under the lower civil standard of proof.
Unlock the full brief for Ang v. Martin