Pantely v. Garris, Garris & Garris, PC
180 Mich. App. 768, 447 N.W.2d 864 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of in pari delicto bars a client from recovering damages in a legal malpractice action against an attorney when the client has knowingly participated in an illegal act, such as perjury, that is the source of the damages.
Facts:
- Eugenia Pantely hired attorney Garris to handle her divorce from Thomas Stamadianos.
- Garris filed the divorce complaint in Livingston County, which had a ten-day residency requirement.
- Pantely had not lived in Livingston County for the required ten days prior to the filing.
- Allegedly on Garris's advice, Pantely falsely testified under oath that she met the county's residency requirement.
- Based on this false testimony, the court granted Pantely a divorce judgment.
- Pantely subsequently remarried.
- Her ex-husband, Stamadianos, later challenged the divorce judgment on the grounds of fraud, citing Pantely's false residency testimony.
- Pantely eventually admitted in an affidavit that she had committed perjury regarding her residency, which led to the entire divorce judgment being set aside by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugenia Pantely (plaintiff) sued her former attorneys, Garris and Salisbury (defendants), for legal malpractice in the Washtenaw Circuit Court (trial court).
- Defendants Garris and Salisbury filed separate motions for summary disposition, arguing the case should be dismissed without a trial.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of both defendants.
- The trial court ruled that Pantely's claim against Garris was barred by the in pari delicto doctrine because she knowingly committed perjury.
- The trial court ruled that Salisbury's actions were not the proximate cause of Pantely's injuries.
- Pantely (appellant) appealed the trial court's grants of summary disposition to the Michigan 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:
Does the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a legal malpractice claim by a client who knowingly committed perjury on her attorney's advice, where the alleged damages stemmed directly from that perjury?
Opinions:
Majority - R.L. Tahvonen, J.
Yes. The doctrine of in pari delicto bars a client who is an equal partner in wrongdoing from recovering damages from her attorney for the consequences of that wrongdoing. The court held that a client who knowingly commits perjury, even on the advice of her lawyer, is equally at fault and cannot found a cause of action upon her own immoral and illegal act. The court rejected Pantely's argument that she was not equally at fault due to the stress of her divorce and reliance on her attorney, reasoning that perjury is a simple and obvious wrong, not a complex legal matter where a client would be unaware of its illegality. The court also dismissed the public policy argument that allowing such suits would help discipline errant attorneys, stating that other remedies like professional discipline, contempt proceedings, and criminal prosecution exist to address attorney misconduct without rewarding a client who also committed a crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'in pari delicto' (equal fault) doctrine as a potent defense in legal malpractice cases. It establishes that a client's knowing participation in a clearly illegal act, like perjury, severs their ability to sue an attorney for advice related to that act. The ruling creates a high bar for clients seeking to blame attorneys for joint misconduct, distinguishing between complex legal advice and simple, universally understood wrongs. This precedent strongly discourages clients from following patently illegal advice, as it forecloses the possibility of recovering damages if the scheme fails.
