Marsh v. Wallace
666 F. Supp. 2d 651, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98273, 2009 WL 3415998 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits legal malpractice by breaching the fiduciary duty of loyalty when representing a client in a transaction where the attorney has a personal financial interest and an undisclosed conflict arising from dual representation of adverse parties. The attorney is also liable for negligence when errors in preparing legal documents proximately cause financial harm to the client.
Facts:
- In 2005, Kirk and Russel Marsh (the Marshes) formed Marsh Investment Group to invest in real estate.
- The Marshes entered into a $4.9 million transaction to purchase approximately 150 rental properties from Aden 'Bubber' Wallace.
- During negotiations, Wallace and his associate Richard O’Dom provided the Marshes with financial statements known as 'Trailing 12s' purporting to show the properties' historical income.
- Wallace recommended that the Marshes use his long-time attorney, John Howell, to handle the closing, as Howell had prior experience with the properties. At the time, Wallace owed Howell $36,000 in past-due legal fees.
- The Marshes hired Howell, who proceeded to draft transfer agreements and other closing documents.
- Howell prepared promissory notes for the Marshes to sign, including notes directly to Wallace's mother, wife, and an associate for properties already included in the main sale agreement.
- After the closing, the properties generated significantly less income than the Marshes expected, causing them to default on their loans and Wallace to foreclose on the properties.
- The Marshes later learned that Howell had prepared an erroneous final title certificate for a bank loan, which failed to properly secure the bank's interest in the collateral, and had drafted documents that caused them to be 'double encumbered' on several properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Kirk David Marsh, Kirk Russel Marsh, and Marsh Investment Group, LLP (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, a court of first instance.
- The complaint named Aden Wallace, Priscilla Wallace, and Richard O'Dom as defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.
- The complaint also asserted a claim against Richard O'Dom for acting as an unlicensed real estate broker.
- Finally, the complaint asserted claims against attorney John Howell for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, constituting legal malpractice.
- The case was tried to the bench without a jury over a period of eight days.
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 commit legal malpractice by representing a buyer in a real estate transaction while having a personal financial interest and a prior relationship with the seller, without fully disclosing the conflict and obtaining informed consent, and by preparing erroneous legal documents?
Opinions:
Majority - Tom S. Lee, District Judge
Yes. Attorney John Howell committed legal malpractice by breaching his fiduciary duty of loyalty and by acting negligently. Howell had a conflict of interest due to his personal financial stake in collecting $36,000 in past-due fees from the seller, Wallace, and by representing both the Marshes (buyers) and Wallace (his long-time client), whose interests were adverse. Howell failed to fully disclose the nature and risks of this conflict and did not obtain the Marshes' knowing, informed consent, thereby breaching his duty of loyalty. Furthermore, Howell was negligent in preparing an erroneous final title certificate that caused a bank's security interest to fail, and in drafting documents that resulted in the Marshes becoming 'double encumbered' on certain properties. This negligence was a proximate cause of the Marshes' financial harm, making Howell liable for damages including the disgorgement of his legal fees and indemnification for the liability created by his errors.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical importance of an attorney's duty of loyalty, particularly for transactional lawyers in real estate closings. It clarifies that a conflict of interest can arise not only from dual representation of adverse parties but also from an attorney's personal financial stake in the transaction's outcome. The court sets a high standard for 'informed consent,' requiring a full explanation of a conflict's risks, rather than mere client awareness of the underlying facts. This precedent reinforces that a breach of fiduciary duty can lead to the disgorgement of fees, while negligent acts, such as document drafting errors, can result in direct liability for the client's resulting financial losses.
