Lexplug logoLexplug

Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
446 F.3d 712 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state-law claim for legal malpractice does not "arise under" federal law for the purposes of federal question jurisdiction and removal simply because the alleged malpractice occurred during representation in a federal case. The need to interpret or apply federal law to resolve the state-law claim is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.


Facts:

  • Hays was represented by a law firm and its lawyers in a federal criminal case.
  • Following the representation, Hays was convicted of the federal criminal charges.
  • Hays did not appeal his conviction.
  • Hays subsequently filed a lawsuit against his former lawyers, alleging legal malpractice under Illinois common law.

Procedural Posture:

  • Hays filed a legal malpractice suit against his former lawyers in an Illinois state court.
  • The defendants removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court, asserting federal question jurisdiction.
  • Hays filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
  • The district court denied the motion to remand, ruling that federal jurisdiction existed because the case required evaluation of federal law.
  • The district court then dismissed the suit on the merits.
  • Hays (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Locked

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 state-law legal malpractice claim, which originated from a defendant's representation of a plaintiff in a federal criminal case, arise under federal law for removal purposes because its resolution requires an evaluation of federal law?


Opinions:

Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge

No. A state-law legal malpractice claim does not become a federal claim simply because the underlying litigation was in a federal court. The court applied the well-pleaded complaint rule, which states that a case is not removable based on a federal defense or the anticipated need to interpret federal law. The elements of legal malpractice are defined entirely by state law—in this case, Illinois law—and federal law does not preempt this field or create the cause of action. For removal to be proper, the plaintiff's claim itself must be created by federal law, which is not the situation here, as Hays's claim for malpractice is grounded in state common law.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict application of the well-pleaded complaint rule and clarifies the limited scope of "arising under" jurisdiction for removal. It establishes that the mere presence of an embedded federal issue within a state-law claim is not, by itself, sufficient to support removal to federal court. This holding maintains the traditional division of labor between state and federal courts, preventing federal dockets from being filled with state tort cases that have only an incidental connection to prior federal litigation. The ruling solidifies the principle that plaintiffs are masters of their complaint, especially when their claims are based squarely on state law that is not preempted by a federal statute.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP (2006) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP