Robert Allen Barker v. Donald H. Capotosto and Thomas M. Magee
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 14, 875 N.W.2d 157 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant suing their former attorney for legal malpractice is not required to prove their actual innocence of the underlying criminal conduct as a separate element of the claim. Instead, the defendant's guilt or innocence is relevant to determining whether the attorney's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the defendant's damages.
Facts:
- In 2006, Robert Barker placed graffiti in a public restroom with an email address, inviting young males for oral sex.
- A law enforcement agent, posing as a 15-year-old male, contacted Barker using the email address and established online communication.
- Barker and the undercover agent made plans to meet for a sex act.
- When Barker appeared at the arranged meeting location, he was arrested.
- The State initially charged Barker with attempted enticement of a minor and lascivious acts with a child.
- Represented by attorney Thomas Magee, Barker entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to an amended charge of solicitation of a minor.
- Attorney Donald Capotosto took over Barker's representation for the subsequent plea and sentencing hearing.
- Barker pled guilty to the solicitation charge, admitting he arranged to meet someone he believed was a 15-year-old for a possible sexual encounter.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Robert Barker in Palo Alto County District Court, which later amended one count to solicitation of a minor.
- Barker pled guilty to solicitation of a minor, and the district court sentenced him to a five-year suspended sentence with probation.
- After probation violations, the district court revoked Barker's probation and ordered him to serve his prison sentence.
- Barker filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court granted Barker's application, found his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty to a non-existent crime, and vacated his conviction and sentence.
- Barker filed a legal malpractice petition against his former attorneys, Magee and Capotosto, in the district court.
- The attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Barker could not prove his actual innocence of related criminal conduct.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the attorneys, holding that actual innocence is a required element in a criminal malpractice action.
- Barker, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Iowa Supreme 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 Iowa law require a plaintiff in a criminal legal malpractice action to prove, as a prerequisite to recovery, that they are actually innocent of the underlying criminal conduct and all transactionally related offenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, Justice
No. A client's showing of actual innocence is not a prerequisite to bringing a legal malpractice claim against a former criminal defense attorney. The court rejected the 'actual innocence' rule adopted by a majority of jurisdictions, finding it imposes an additional barrier to recovery that other malpractice plaintiffs do not face. The court reasoned that the existing prerequisite—that the plaintiff must first obtain relief from their conviction (as established in Trobaugh v. Sondag)—is a sufficient screen against frivolous claims. The plaintiff's factual guilt or innocence is not irrelevant but should be considered by the fact-finder as part of the traditional malpractice elements, particularly when determining whether the attorney's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the client's injury. The court found this approach consistent with the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers and noted that the Iowa legislature had not imposed an actual innocence requirement for claims against appointed counsel, suggesting it should not be created by common law.
Dissenting - Zager, Justice
Yes. The court should adopt the 'actual innocence' requirement for criminal malpractice claims, aligning with the majority of other states. The dissent argued that unless a plaintiff can prove actual innocence, their own criminal acts—not the attorney's alleged negligence—should be considered the cause-in-fact of their harm. This requirement is essential to proving proximate causation as a matter of law. Public policy strongly supports the rule, as it prevents criminals from profiting from their own wrongdoing, maintains respect for the justice system, and avoids a 'chilling effect' on the willingness of attorneys to represent indigent criminal defendants. The dissent concluded that the prerequisite of simply having a conviction overturned is insufficient because it addresses only legal guilt, not factual innocence.
Analysis:
This decision places Iowa in the minority of jurisdictions that have rejected the 'actual innocence' rule for criminal malpractice claims. By doing so, the court lowers a significant barrier for former criminal defendants seeking to hold their attorneys accountable for professional negligence. The ruling shifts the focus from a threshold question of innocence to the traditional tort elements of causation and damages, making such cases more fact-intensive and likely to be decided by a jury. This precedent may lead to an increase in criminal malpractice litigation in the state and clarifies that even a factually guilty person can recover damages if they can prove their lawyer's negligence led to a worse outcome, such as a longer sentence or conviction on a more serious charge.
Unlock the full brief for Robert Allen Barker v. Donald H. Capotosto and Thomas M. Magee