Cook v. Irion
409 S.W.2d 475, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2312 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney is not liable for legal malpractice based on an error in judgment when making a good-faith strategic decision about litigation tactics. To be liable for negligence, an attorney's actions must fall below the ordinary standard of care, not merely be a tactical choice that proved unsuccessful.
Facts:
- On August 2, 1962, Mrs. Cook tripped on a television cable on a sidewalk at the Charles Bassett Community Center and was injured.
- The incident occurred during a large promotional event sponsored by the Bassett Center Merchants Association, an organization composed of all tenants and the landlord.
- The television cable was owned by KROD TV, Inc., and the sidewalk was on property owned by Charles Bassett Shopping Center, Inc., creating three potential defendants.
- In February 1963, the Cooks hired attorneys John C. Akard and James E. Irion on a contingent fee basis to pursue their personal injury claim.
- After an initial investigation, the attorneys made the strategic decision to file a lawsuit solely against the Merchants Association.
Procedural Posture:
- In the original personal injury action, the Cooks sued the Merchants Association in a Texas trial court.
- At the conclusion of the Cooks' case, the trial court granted an instructed verdict for the Merchants Association, and a take-nothing judgment was entered.
- No appeal was perfected from the judgment in the personal injury suit.
- The Cooks (appellants) then filed a legal malpractice suit against their former attorneys, Akard and Irion (appellees), in a Texas trial court.
- At the conclusion of the Cooks' case in the malpractice suit, the trial court granted the attorneys' motion for an instructed verdict and entered a take-nothing judgment.
- The Cooks appealed the judgment in the malpractice suit to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
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 good-faith, strategic decision to sue only one of several potential defendants, rather than all of them, constitute professional negligence when the lawsuit is ultimately unsuccessful?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrow, Justice
No. An attorney's good-faith strategic decision to sue only one of several potential defendants does not constitute professional negligence merely because the suit was unsuccessful. An attorney is not liable for an error in judgment if they act in good faith and in an honest belief that their advice and acts are well-founded and in the best interest of the client. The decision of whom to join as defendants is a matter of trial strategy and judgment, influenced by local conditions and experience. In this case, the Merchants Association was a proper and insured defendant, and the decision to sue them alone, rather than complicate the case by adding other parties, was a tactical choice. The fact that the suit ultimately failed does not, by itself, prove that the attorney's judgment was negligent. Furthermore, the court gave little weight to the appellants' expert witness, who was from a vastly different locality and was not qualified to 'second-guess' the judgment of an experienced local attorney on matters of trial strategy.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'judgmental immunity' rule, which protects attorneys from malpractice liability for good-faith strategic decisions that result in an unfavorable outcome. It establishes a clear distinction between a negligent failure to meet the standard of care and a mere error in judgment, which is not actionable. The decision solidifies the high burden on plaintiffs in malpractice cases, as they must prove that the attorney's actions were not just unsuccessful but also fell below the accepted professional standard. It also highlights the relevance of local practice and experience in evaluating an attorney's tactical choices, potentially limiting the effectiveness of expert testimony from outside the relevant legal community.
