Costello v. Hardy
2004 WL 97107, 864 So.2d 129 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Allegations made in a judicial pleading do not constitute defamation if the plaintiff had a reasonable belief in the truth of the statements, which can be established by reliance on documentary evidence and the advice of counsel.
Facts:
- Joseph Costello, in deteriorating health, hired his attorney, Ashton Hardy, to draft his will.
- Costello expressed a desire to leave the bulk of his estate to Loyola University but also to provide his 85-year-old mother, Josephine Costello, with an annual income of $25,000 for her living expenses.
- Hardy and Costello discussed various methods to provide this income, including options outside the will to avoid disqualifying Josephine from potential federal benefits.
- On March 5, 1997, Joseph Costello signed the will, which did not contain the provision for his mother's annual income, with the understanding that revisions or a separate mechanism would be finalized later.
- A meeting to finalize the provision for Josephine was scheduled, but Costello was hospitalized on the day of the meeting and died on April 23, 1997, without any formal document guaranteeing the income.
- In a separate legal proceeding challenging the will, documents were produced, including letters between Hardy and a Loyola representative, that confirmed Costello's intent to provide the $25,000 income for his mother and contemplated a codicil to the will.
- After reviewing these documents and consulting with two separate attorneys who advised she had a potential claim, Josephine Costello filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Hardy.
Procedural Posture:
- Josephine Costello's family filed a petition in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, a trial court, to annul the will of Joseph Costello.
- Josephine Costello filed a separate legal malpractice lawsuit against Ashton Hardy and his law firm in Jefferson Parish District Court, a trial court.
- Hardy and his firm filed a reconventional demand (a counterclaim) against Costello for defamation and abuse of process.
- The trial court granted Hardy's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Costello's malpractice claim.
- Following a bench trial on the reconventional demand, the trial court found in favor of Hardy on the defamation claim and awarded damages totaling $60,000.
- Costello, as appellant, appealed both the summary judgment on the malpractice claim and the defamation award to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court. Hardy and his firm were the appellees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in their entirety.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do allegations of professional negligence in a legal malpractice lawsuit lack the requisite element of malice for a defamation claim when the plaintiff filed the suit based on documentary evidence and on the advice of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Weimer
No. The allegations of professional negligence in the malpractice suit do not constitute defamation because Josephine Costello did not act with the requisite malice. To establish defamation, a plaintiff must prove fault, or malice, which is defined as a lack of reasonable belief in the truth of the statement. Here, Costello had probable cause to believe her allegations were true based on documentary evidence—contemporaneous notes and letters confirming her son's intent—that was produced during a separate legal proceeding. Furthermore, she filed the malpractice suit only after two attorneys reviewed this evidence and advised her that she had a colorable claim. Reliance on the advice of counsel, after full disclosure of the facts, negates an inference of malice. The fact that Costello ultimately did not prevail on her malpractice claim does not mean she lacked probable cause for bringing it. Because the plaintiffs-in-reconvention (Hardy and his firm) failed to prove the essential element of malice, their defamation claim fails.
Concurring - Justice Knoll
Yes, but only in spirit regarding the family's broader actions. While the record does not support a finding of malice by Josephine Costello herself, it strongly suggests that her sons acted with malice in an attempt to break their brother's will or deplete the estate. The decedent's brothers were aggrieved by the large bequest to Loyola University and threatened litigation to pressure the estate into a settlement more favorable to them. However, since the brothers are not parties to the defamation claim, the claim against Josephine Costello properly fails. The author also commends attorney Hardy for his fidelity in upholding his client's testamentary wishes despite pressure from the family.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'malice' standard for defamation claims arising from allegations made within judicial pleadings in Louisiana. It establishes that filing a lawsuit, even if ultimately unsuccessful, is not defamatory if the plaintiff had a 'reasonable belief' or 'probable cause' for the allegations. The ruling provides a significant shield for litigants by demonstrating that reliance on documentary evidence and the advice of legal counsel can defeat a subsequent defamation claim by negating the element of malice. This protects access to the courts by ensuring individuals can pursue colorable claims without fear of retaliatory defamation suits.
