Chapman v. Bearfield
2006 Tenn. LEXIS 990, 207 S.W.3d 736 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action, the standard of care for an attorney is a single, statewide standard, and an expert witness testifying on this standard must be familiar with the statewide standard, not a localized one.
Facts:
- In 2001, Cathy L. Chapman and her family (the Chapmans) retained attorney Rick J. Bearfield to represent them in a medical malpractice action arising from a family member's death.
- The Chapmans became dissatisfied with the quality of Bearfield's legal representation.
- As a result of their dissatisfaction, the Chapmans obtained new legal counsel.
- After reviewing the case file, the Chapmans' new counsel advised them to file a legal malpractice suit against Bearfield.
Procedural Posture:
- The Chapmans filed a legal malpractice action against their former attorney, Rick J. Bearfield, in the Washington County Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- Bearfield moved for summary judgment, arguing his conduct met the local standard of care for attorneys in 'the upper East Tennessee area,' supported by his own affidavit.
- The Chapmans opposed the motion with an affidavit from an expert attorney, Richard L. Duncan, who attested to his familiarity with the statewide standard of care for attorneys in Tennessee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bearfield, finding that the Chapmans' expert failed to satisfy a 'locality rule' by not demonstrating familiarity with the local standard of care.
- The Chapmans, as appellants, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that no 'locality rule' governs the conduct of attorneys in Tennessee.
- Bearfield, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 Tennessee law require an expert witness in a legal malpractice case to be familiar with a local standard of professional care rather than a single, statewide standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, J.
No. Tennessee applies a single, statewide professional standard of care for attorneys, and expert witnesses in legal malpractice cases must be familiar with this statewide standard. The court reasoned that the term 'jurisdiction,' as used in prior case law establishing the standard of care, refers to the entire state of Tennessee because the state supreme court grants attorneys a license to practice anywhere within the state's borders. While local rules of practice may exist, there is only one standard of professional care. The court explicitly declined to extend the statutory 'locality rule' from medical malpractice to legal malpractice, noting its statutory origin for doctors and absence for lawyers. The court also cited policy reasons, including preventing a 'conspiracy of silence' where local attorneys refuse to testify against colleagues, avoiding an inequitable patchwork of standards, and recognizing that modern legal research tools have eliminated the historical justifications for local variations.
Analysis:
This decision definitively establishes a uniform standard of conduct for all attorneys licensed in Tennessee, resolving ambiguity from prior cases and rejecting the 'locality rule' common in medical malpractice. By doing so, the court aligns Tennessee with the majority of other states that have adopted a statewide standard for legal malpractice. The ruling's primary impact is on litigation practice, as it broadens the potential pool of expert witnesses for plaintiffs, who are no longer constrained to finding an expert from the defendant-attorney's specific geographic area. This simplifies the plaintiff's burden in proving a breach of the standard of care and promotes a consistent application of professional ethics and competence across the state.
