Cosgrove v. Grimes
32 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 501, 774 S.W.2d 662, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 31 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's conduct in a legal malpractice action is judged by an objective standard of care based on what a reasonably prudent attorney would do under the same or similar circumstances, not by the attorney's subjective good faith belief that their actions were in the client's best interest.
Facts:
- In July 1976, Frank Cosgrove was injured when his car was struck from behind by a car driven by Will Michael Stephens; Timothy Purnell was a passenger in Stephens' car.
- Shortly after, Cosgrove hired attorney Ed W. Bass, Jr., signing a power of attorney that also named attorney Walter Grimes.
- Before the statute of limitations ran, Bass left the state and informed Cosgrove he was turning the automobile collision claim over to Grimes.
- Grimes filed a lawsuit on Cosgrove's behalf but named the passenger, Timothy Purnell, as the defendant instead of the driver, Will Michael Stephens.
- The lawsuit filed by Grimes also alleged the incorrect location of the accident.
- After the two-year statute of limitations had expired, Cosgrove discovered that Grimes had sued the wrong person, which prevented him from recovering for his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Cosgrove sued attorneys Ed W. Bass and Walter Grimes for legal malpractice in a Texas state trial court.
- At trial, the jury found that Grimes had been negligent but also found, in response to special issues, that he had acted in good faith.
- Based on the jury's finding of good faith, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment, meaning Cosgrove recovered no damages from the attorneys.
- Cosgrove, as appellant, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the validity of the good faith defense.
- Cosgrove, as petitioner, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court for civil matters.
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 subjective good faith belief that their actions were in the client's best interest serve as a valid defense to a legal malpractice claim based on negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Spears
No, an attorney's subjective good faith belief does not excuse professional negligence. A lawyer in Texas is held to an objective standard of care, which is what a reasonably prudent attorney would do in the same or similar circumstances. The court reasoned that allowing a subjective good faith defense would create too great a burden for wronged clients. The standard for malpractice is an objective exercise of professional judgment, not the subjective belief of the attorney. While an attorney is not liable for a strategic decision that a reasonably prudent attorney could have made which later turns out to be imperfect, they are liable for actions that fall below this objective standard, regardless of their intent. The court explicitly disapproved of prior Texas cases that had recognized a subjective good faith defense in legal malpractice actions.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it firmly rejects the subjective 'good faith' or 'error in judgment' defense in Texas legal malpractice cases, aligning the standard of care for attorneys with that of other professions. By establishing a purely objective standard based on the 'reasonably prudent attorney,' the court provides a clearer and more predictable framework for evaluating malpractice claims. This holding strengthens client protections by focusing on the competence of the legal services provided rather than the attorney's personal intentions, thereby holding attorneys more accountable for their professional conduct and preventing them from using a subjective belief as a shield for substandard work.
