Boyd v. Brett-Major
449 So.2d 952 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a valid affirmative defense to a legal malpractice claim where the attorney's allegedly negligent conduct was undertaken in accordance with the specific, well-advised, and lawful instructions of the client.
Facts:
- Ruth and John Boyd's son required a $100,000 criminal appearance bond.
- A bonding company agreed to post the bond in exchange for the Boyds signing a mortgage and promissory note on their home.
- The bonding company failed to file a statutorily required affidavit, which created an absolute legal defense for the Boyds against any future foreclosure.
- The Boyds' son failed to appear in court, causing the bond to be forfeited.
- The bonding company initiated a mortgage foreclosure action against the Boyds' home.
- The Boyds retained attorney Lin Brett-Major to represent them in the foreclosure action.
- Brett-Major contended that the Boyds instructed her only to delay the action so they could raise funds to pay the debt and maintain a good relationship with the bonding company, not to win the case using the available defense.
- Acting on these alleged instructions, Brett-Major did not adequately plead the statutory defense, and the Boyds ultimately lost their home in the foreclosure.
Procedural Posture:
- The bonding company sued the Boyds in a foreclosure action in trial court.
- A final summary judgment was entered against the Boyds in that action.
- The Boyds appealed the summary judgment, which was affirmed by the intermediate appellate court.
- The Boyds then filed a legal malpractice action against their attorney, Lin Brett-Major, in trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant-attorney, Brett-Major.
- The Boyds, as appellants, appealed the judgment from the malpractice trial to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, challenging an affirmative defense and jury instruction.
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 have a valid affirmative defense to a legal malpractice claim by asserting that the challenged course of action was taken at the specific instruction of a well-advised client?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ferguson
Yes, an attorney has a valid affirmative defense to a legal malpractice claim by asserting that the challenged course of action was taken at the specific instruction of a well-advised client. An attorney's role is not to independently determine what is best for a client, but to allow the client to determine their own best interests and then act according to the client's wishes, provided they are within the limits of the law. The court found that the central inquiry is the factual question of whether the attorney was following the client's explicit directions. Citing precedent from other jurisdictions, the court affirmed that a lawyer is dutibound to carry out the specific instructions of a client and may not force a client to pursue a course of action against their wishes, even if the lawyer believes it is in the client's best interest. Therefore, the jury instruction on this affirmative defense was proper.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of client autonomy in the attorney-client relationship in Florida. It establishes that an attorney's duty to follow a client's lawful strategic instructions can serve as a shield against malpractice liability, even if that strategy results in a negative outcome. This precedent shifts the focus in some malpractice cases from an objective standard of care to a factual inquiry into the client's directives. Consequently, it highlights the critical importance for attorneys to clearly communicate with clients about their options and to meticulously document the client's ultimate decisions and instructions.
Unlock the full brief for Boyd v. Brett-Major