Kirsch v. Duryea

Rule of Law:

An attorney is not liable for legal malpractice for withdrawing from a case they believe lacks merit if the decision is based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence and they take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client's rights.

Facts:

• Plaintiff injured his shoulder at work in 1963 and underwent surgery involving an 'airplane splint.'
• A subsequent doctor, Dr. Hickey, initially believed the splint caused ulnar nerve damage, but later medical reports suggested the plaintiff's continuing pain resulted from spinal issues or neurosis rather than the surgery.
• Plaintiff hired the defendant attorney to pursue a medical malpractice claim regarding the shoulder injury.
• The attorney reviewed the medical files and consulted with doctors but did not depose them, eventually concluding there was insufficient evidence to win because the medical opinions were conflicting.
• In July 1969, approximately eight months before the five-year mandatory trial deadline, the attorney mailed the plaintiff a letter stating the case had no merit and enclosing a substitution of attorney form.
• The letter explicitly warned the plaintiff in capital letters that the case must be brought to trial before March 23, 1970.
• The plaintiff did not return the form or secure new counsel despite the attorney sending a second warning letter in September.

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against his treating physicians.
• Defendant (attorney) filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the trial court granted.
• The underlying medical malpractice case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to bring the matter to trial within the statutory five-year limit.
• Plaintiff sued the Defendant for legal malpractice in state trial court.
• The jury found the Defendant negligent and awarded damages to the Plaintiff.
• Defendant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.