Koutsogiannis v. BB & T
2005 S.C. LEXIS 194, 365 S.C. 145, 616 S.E.2d 425 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney acting within the scope of legal representation is an agent of the client, and the client is vicariously liable for the attorney's acts or omissions; therefore, the client is not entitled to a jury instruction on the law of independent contractors to shield itself from such liability.
Facts:
- Respondent financed a car purchase with a loan from a bank that merged into BB & T.
- In May 1999, BB & T improperly entered respondent's full monthly payment as a partial payment, creating a false debt of $23.76.
- Based on its own error, BB & T began aggressive collection efforts and reported the error to credit agencies.
- Due to the collection efforts and BB & T's inability to provide a correct pay-off figure, respondent ceased making payments in October 1999.
- BB & T referred the collection matter to an outside attorney.
- Respondent entered into a contract to purchase a valuable parcel of commercial real estate.
- Respondent lost the real estate deal due to the credit reporting error caused by BB & T.
Procedural Posture:
- BB & T filed a collection action against the respondent in the trial court.
- Respondent filed counterclaims against BB & T for libel, conversion, breach of contract, and gross negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BB & T on both its claims and the respondent's counterclaims.
- Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the summary judgment on the counterclaims and remanded the case for trial.
- A jury trial was held on the respondent's counterclaims.
- At trial, the court denied BB & T's request for a jury instruction on the law of independent contractor but gave an instruction on agency law.
- The jury found for the respondent on the gross negligence counterclaim and awarded $98,000 in damages.
- BB & T, as appellant, appealed the verdict, and the South Carolina Supreme Court certified the case for review from the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to charge the jury on the law of independent contractor regarding the actions of a client's attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Moore
No, the trial court did not err by refusing to charge the jury on the law of independent contractor. In an attorney-client relationship, the attorney acts as an agent for the client, and the client is generally bound by the attorney's acts or omissions that fall within the scope of the representation. The proper legal focus is not whether the attorney is an independent contractor, but whether the attorney was acting within the scope of their authority. Here, the attorney's actions—engaging in settlement negotiations and preparing a summary judgment order—were clearly within the scope of his representation of BB & T. Therefore, any misconduct by the attorney is directly attributable to the client, BB & T, making an agency instruction correct and an independent contractor instruction inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that the attorney-client relationship is one of agency, not that of an employer and independent contractor, for purposes of vicarious liability. It prevents clients from shielding themselves from liability for their attorneys' tortious conduct during litigation by claiming the attorney had independent control. The decision reinforces that clients are responsible for the actions their attorneys take on their behalf within the scope of representation, such as wrongful collection efforts or deceptive court filings. This precedent strengthens accountability for clients in the conduct of their legal affairs.
Unlock the full brief for Koutsogiannis v. BB & T