Cocco v. PRITCHER
2009 WL 321580, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1113, 1 So.3d 1246 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exoneration requirement, which is a precondition for a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal case, does not apply to a malpractice claim arising from a separate, albeit related, civil proceeding such as a domestic violence injunction.
Facts:
- In 2003, Justin D. Coceo was charged with domestic battery against his girlfriend and hired attorney Phyllis Pritcher to represent him.
- A criminal court issued a written no-contact order as a condition of Cocco's bond.
- In a separate proceeding, a different court issued a civil restraining order for protection against domestic violence.
- Cocco's bond in the criminal case was revoked due to allegations that he had contact with his girlfriend.
- Coceo initially pled guilty to the domestic violence battery charge.
- In 2006, Coceo's domestic battery conviction was exonerated because there was no factual basis for the domestic element of the charge.
- Following the exoneration, Coceo pled guilty to the lesser charge of simple battery based on the same incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Justin D. Coceo sued his former attorney, Phyllis Pritcher, in a Florida trial court for legal malpractice.
- The trial court permitted Coceo to amend his complaint three times.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss Cocco's third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice.
- Coceo, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
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 the exoneration requirement for legal malpractice claims arising from a criminal prosecution also apply to a related but separate civil injunction proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Damoorgian, J.
No. The exoneration requirement for legal malpractice claims applies only to claims arising out of criminal cases and does not extend to separate civil proceedings. To maintain a malpractice action stemming from a criminal case, a defendant must first establish that the final disposition of the criminal case was in their favor. Here, Coceo cannot meet this requirement for his criminal case because, after his domestic battery conviction was vacated, he pled no contest to simple battery, meaning the final disposition was not in his favor. However, the civil injunction was a separate proceeding. The exoneration requirement is specific to criminal matters and does not bar a malpractice claim related to the civil injunction. Coceo may maintain his action for malpractice related to the civil injunction, but only insofar as he can prove damages that arose solely from the injunction, not from the criminal case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the exoneration rule in Florida legal malpractice law, strictly confining it to claims originating from criminal prosecutions. It prevents the rule from barring otherwise valid malpractice claims in related civil matters, such as protective injunctions, that often accompany criminal charges. The ruling creates a pathway for relief for clients who may have received negligent representation in civil matters, even if they cannot meet the high bar of exoneration in their criminal case. However, the court's crucial limitation on damages prevents plaintiffs from using the civil claim as an end-run around the exoneration rule to recover for harms caused by their criminal conviction.
Unlock the full brief for Cocco v. PRITCHER