Rizzo v. Haines
90 A.L.R. 4th 1007, 520 Pa. 484, 555 A.2d 58 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a duty to communicate all settlement offers to a client and to reasonably investigate settlement inquiries from the opposing party. A transaction in which an attorney procures a client's assets as a purported gift is subject to the highest scrutiny and will be considered fraudulent if not attended by good faith and full disclosure.
Facts:
- On September 20, 1968, Frank L. Rizzo, an off-duty police officer, was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by a City of Philadelphia police vehicle.
- Rizzo's injuries worsened over time, and after three surgeries in 1971, he became permanently partially paralyzed.
- Rizzo retained attorney Barton A. Haines to represent him in a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia (the 'City case') and a separate medical malpractice suit against his surgeon (the 'Wycis case').
- During settlement talks for the City case, a City solicitor offered $300,000 plus a lifetime pension, which Haines did not fully investigate.
- Later, during the trial, the City solicitor told Haines he could get 'more than $550,000' and had authority to settle for $750,000, but Haines failed to pursue this inquiry or inform Rizzo, instead demanding $2 million. Rizzo had previously authorized Haines to settle for $700,000 to $750,000.
- After a jury awarded Rizzo $450,000, a judge handling a fee dispute ordered that $50,000 from the attorneys' fees be returned to Rizzo due to Haines's improper handling of settlement negotiations.
- Haines then persuaded Rizzo to give him the $50,000 back, characterizing it as a gift, without showing Rizzo the judge's written findings that detailed Haines's misconduct.
- Rizzo also gave Haines $30,000 in cash, ostensibly for costs related to the Wycis case, but Haines used part of it to reimburse himself for undocumented personal loans and other legal services without a prior agreement or proper accounting.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank L. Rizzo and Lena Rizzo sued Barton A. Haines in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found for the Rizzos and entered a judgment against Haines for compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court denied Haines's post-trial motions, which included a motion for the judge's recusal.
- Haines, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but modified it, holding that interest on the fraudulently transferred $50,000 must be calculated at the market rate rather than the statutory rate.
- Haines, as appellant, appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court).
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 malpractice by failing to investigate and communicate settlement offers to their client, and does the attorney breach their fiduciary duty by fraudulently inducing the client to transfer funds to the attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Stout, J.
Yes. An attorney's duty to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge extends to settlement negotiations, and financial transactions with clients are held to the highest standard of good faith. Haines committed malpractice by failing to investigate and communicate significant settlement possibilities to his client, Frank L. Rizzo. An attorney may not shield himself from liability by claiming that failing to pursue a settlement inquiry was a matter of professional judgment or strategy. This duty to investigate and inform does not require expert testimony to establish the standard of care, as it is within the comprehension of a layperson. Furthermore, Haines breached his fiduciary duty and committed fraud by inducing Rizzo to transfer $50,000 to him without disclosing the judge's findings that this money was returned to Rizzo precisely because of Haines's misconduct. Such conduct, which involves intentional misrepresentation and abuse of a confidential relationship, justifies the imposition of punitive damages and requires that interest on the fraudulently obtained funds be calculated at the market rate to prevent the wrongdoer from profiting.
Concurring - Flaherty, J.
Yes. While joining the majority, this opinion expresses concern about creating a precedent that imposes liability on an attorney for a settlement strategy or for failing to know the opposing counsel's actual settlement authority. However, this case does not set such a dangerous precedent because the attorney's conduct went beyond a mere tactical decision and constituted a clear breach of his duties.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that an attorney's professional duty of care applies forcefully to settlement negotiations, not just trial performance. It establishes that failures to investigate and communicate settlement offers are actionable malpractice, not protected strategic choices. The decision also reinforces the extremely high fiduciary standard governing financial transactions between attorneys and clients, viewing purported 'gifts' with 'virtually insurmountable suspicion.' By ordering interest calculated at the market rate on fraudulently obtained funds, the court created a deterrent against attorneys profiting from fiduciary breaches, ensuring victims are made whole based on what their money could have earned.
