Bailey v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co.
788 A.2d 478, 2002 R.I. LEXIS 15, 2002 WL 118258 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's inexcusable neglect is imputed to their client under the principles of agency law. This same inexcusable neglect, even if gross, cannot serve as the basis for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) unless other truly extraordinary and unusual circumstances are present.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were employed to excavate a trench and lay a gas line in East Providence.
- Plaintiffs alleged they suffered personal injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals in the soil and groundwater during the excavation.
- Plaintiffs sued several defendants, including Maguire Group, alleging negligence for failing to warn them about the contamination.
- Maguire had retained attorney John Coffey, Jr. for many years, providing him with an office and a monthly retainer of $15,500.
- During the lawsuit, Coffey received discovery requests from the plaintiffs but did not respond to them or inform Maguire.
- Coffey continued to receive court documents, motions to compel, and conditional default orders, which he would stack up and ultimately throw away.
- When asked about the case at quarterly meetings, Coffey falsely reported to Maguire that nothing was happening.
- During this period, Coffey was consuming eight to ten glasses of wine per day, but also competently handled other legal matters for Maguire.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Maguire Group and other defendants in Rhode Island Superior Court for personal injuries.
- Maguire, through its counsel John Coffey, Jr., filed an answer denying the allegations.
- During discovery, plaintiffs served Coffey with a request for production of documents, to which he failed to respond.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, which the court granted.
- Following continued non-compliance, the court entered a conditional default order and later a final default against Maguire.
- After a hearing on damages, the Superior Court entered a default judgment against Maguire for $458,533.69 in August 1999.
- Maguire hired new counsel and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment pursuant to Superior Court Rule 60(b)(1) and (6).
- The Superior Court motion justice denied the motion to vacate.
- Maguire appealed the denial of its motion to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's gross and inexcusable neglect, which disqualifies a client from relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for 'excusable neglect,' constitute an 'other reason justifying relief' under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6) sufficient to vacate a default judgment against a client who was not personally at fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Flanders, Justice
No. An attorney's gross and inexcusable neglect does not, by itself, constitute an 'other reason justifying relief' under Rule 60(b)(6). The court adheres to the fundamental agency principle that a client is bound by the acts and omissions of their freely chosen attorney. Rule 60(b)(1) for 'excusable neglect' and Rule 60(b)(6) for 'any other reason' are mutually exclusive; the same conduct that fails to qualify as excusable neglect under (b)(1) cannot be repurposed to justify relief under (b)(6) without additional, extraordinary circumstances. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Palazzolo, where the client had actively attempted to sever the agency relationship before the judgment was entered. Here, Maguire was unaware of its attorney's malfeasance and took no action until after the judgment was a fait accompli, meaning the agency relationship remained intact. The court concluded that while the result is harsh, it is consistent with the principles of representative litigation and the need for finality of judgments.
Concurring - Flanders, Justice
The concurrence agrees with the majority's reasoning and adds that the potential prejudice to Maguire is mitigated by its ability to seek contribution from the other co-defendants. Because the other tortfeasors in the case have not yet settled, Maguire may be able to pay the default judgment and then file a separate action against them to recover any amount it paid that exceeds its pro-rata share of the plaintiffs' damages. This potential legal remedy for Maguire provides further equitable support for the motion justice's discretionary ruling to not vacate the judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of agency law within the attorney-client relationship, holding clients accountable for even egregious attorney misconduct. It clarifies that Rule 60(b)(6) is not a 'catchall' to remedy attorney malpractice, thus preserving a high bar for vacating final judgments. The ruling solidifies the distinction between mere attorney neglect and situations involving extraordinary circumstances, such as a client's pre-judgment attempt to sever the agency relationship. Future litigants seeking to vacate a default based on attorney misconduct must demonstrate more than just the attorney's gross negligence; they must show unique, external factors that make it manifestly unjust to impute the attorney's actions to the client.
