Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. v. Chason
81 S.W.3d 307, 2001 WL 1525185 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community to constitute the 'extreme and outrageous' element of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mere insults, indignities, maliciousness, or unprofessional behavior, particularly in an adversarial context, are insufficient to meet this high threshold.
Facts:
- Bettye Springer, an attorney with Haynes & Boone, represented the City of Palestine in an employment dispute with Brian Chason.
- A key issue in the dispute was Brian's unauthorized use of a city camera to take provocative photographs of his wife, Lisa Chason.
- For use in an administrative hearing held at a public library, Springer enlarged one of the topless photos of Lisa Chason to poster size; the photo did not show her face.
- At the close of the first day of the hearing, Springer carried the uncovered poster through the library's public foyer, allegedly turning the image toward Lisa Chason and smiling.
- Springer stood with her clients in the foyer and parking lot for several minutes while holding the uncovered poster in public view.
- On the second day of the hearing, Springer approached a newspaper reporter in Lisa Chason's presence and stated she had photographs she would like to sell him.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Chason sued Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. and Bettye Springer in a Texas trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Chason.
- The jury awarded Chason $0 for past damages, but awarded $50,000 for future damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Chason.
- Haynes & Boone and Springer, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Chason as the appellee.
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 conduct during litigation, which includes publicly displaying an enlarged, topless photograph of an opposing party's spouse and making a sarcastic comment about it to a reporter, rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Leonard Davis, Chief Justice
No, the attorney's conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be legally actionable, conduct must be so atrocious and utterly intolerable as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The court distinguished Springer’s actions from cases where conduct was found to be extreme, which often involved prolonged harassment, threats, coercion, sexual propositions, or deceit. Here, the complained-of actions were two isolated incidents that occurred within the adversarial context of litigation. While Springer's behavior may have been rude, unprofessional, and even malicious, it did not cross the high threshold required by Texas law, amounting to 'mere insults, indignities, or other trivialities' rather than conduct that is utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Therefore, the claim failed as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the exceptionally high bar for plaintiffs to succeed on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Texas. It clarifies that the standard for 'extreme and outrageous' conduct is not met by behavior that is merely insulting, malicious, or intended to humiliate, particularly within the context of contentious litigation. The case serves as a precedent that protects attorneys engaged in zealous advocacy from IIED liability for actions that, while unprofessional or rude, do not rise to the level of truly heinous or atrocious conduct. It underscores the legal principle that the severity of the plaintiff's emotional distress does not determine the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct.
