Haynes and Boone, LLP and Betty S. Springer v. Lisa Chason
Unpublished (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For conduct to be considered 'extreme and outrageous' for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it must be so atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, and mere rude, insensitive, or even malicious behavior, especially in an adversarial context, typically does not meet this high threshold.
Facts:
- Brian Chason, Lisa Chason's husband, was involved in an employment dispute with the City of Palestine concerning his unauthorized personal use of a city-owned digital camera.
- Brian Chason had used the city-owned digital camera to take provocative photographs of Lisa Chason, including one showing her unclad torso (without her face).
- Bettye Springer, a partner in Haynes & Boone, represented the City of Palestine in the employment dispute against Brian Chason.
- Springer enlarged the photograph of Lisa Chason's unclad torso to poster size for use as an exhibit at an administrative hearing held at the Palestine Public Library.
- At the close of the first day of the hearing, Springer picked up the poster, turned the image face-out towards Lisa Chason, smiled, and then stood in the library foyer and parking lot for a total of 20-30 minutes, visiting with clients while the poster was visible to library patrons, periodically looking at Chason and smiling.
- On the second day of the hearing, Springer reportedly came out of the hearing room, looked at Lisa Chason, then saw a local newspaper reporter, laughed, and told him she had some photographs she would like to sell him.
- Lisa Chason, a long-time resident of Palestine with a good community reputation, was deeply concerned about the public dissemination of the photographs, especially after police officers, babysitters, and local media had already seen or discussed them.
Procedural Posture:
- Bettye Springer, representing the City of Palestine, participated in an administrative hearing concerning an employment dispute between the City and Brian Chason, Lisa Chason's husband.
- Lisa Chason subsequently sued Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. and Bettye Springer in the Third Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas (trial court/court of first instance) for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- A jury in the trial court found that Springer intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Chason, awarding her no past damages, $50,000 for future damages, and $25,000 in exemplary damages.
- Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. and Bettye Springer (Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment.
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 a lawyer's actions of publicly displaying an enlarged photo of an opposing party's spouse (unclad torso) and making an inappropriate comment to a reporter about it during an administrative hearing constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Leonard Davis
No, a lawyer's actions of publicly displaying an enlarged photo of an opposing party's spouse and making an inappropriate comment to a reporter about it during an administrative hearing do not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that as a threshold matter, the complained-of incidents, while arguably rude, unprofessional, or even malicious, do not go beyond all possible bounds of decency or constitute atrocious and utterly intolerable behavior in a civilized community. The court distinguished Springer's actions from other cases where conduct was found to be extreme and outrageous, noting that Springer did not make indecent propositions, engage in vulgar or obscene behavior, attempt to deceive, threaten, coerce, physically abuse Chason, or commit fraud. The incidents were isolated, occurred in an adversarial litigation context, involved a grainy trial exhibit, and were essentially passive, as Springer never spoke to or physically touched Chason. The court emphasized that the severity of the plaintiff's distress does not factor into the determination of the severity of the defendant's conduct and that even acts that cause emotional distress are not necessarily extreme and outrageous. The conduct was found to be more akin to insensitive indignities, which do not meet the high legal threshold for this tort as defined by the Texas Supreme Court in cases like Brewerton v. Dalrymple and Twyman v. Twyman, and as noted in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the very high bar in Texas for proving 'extreme and outrageous' conduct, a key element of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. It demonstrates that even behavior perceived as deliberate, malicious, and humiliating by the plaintiff, especially within an adversarial legal context, may not meet the stringent legal standard. The ruling suggests that courts will closely scrutinize the nature of the act itself, rather than solely the plaintiff's emotional response, to prevent the tort from becoming a remedy for every rude or unprofessional slight. This strict interpretation limits the scope of such claims, particularly against legal professionals whose actions, though unsavory, may still be viewed as falling within the bounds of zealous, albeit poor, advocacy.
