Rowell v. Holt
2003 WL 21467501, 850 So. 2d 474 (2003)
Rule of Law:
The impact rule does not preclude the recovery of noneconomic damages in a legal malpractice action when an attorney's negligence results in a protracted period of wrongful pretrial incarceration, particularly where the attorney possesses uncontroverted evidence that would have secured the client's immediate release.
Facts:
- In May 1995, John Rowell sold two firearms to a pawnshop and was subsequently arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Rowell was actually innocent of the charges because his civil rights had been restored in 1975 following a 1966 conviction.
- At a preliminary hearing, Rowell provided his public defender with a document proving the restoration of his civil rights.
- The presiding judge instructed the public defender to produce a copy of the document to resolve the case.
- The public defender failed to produce the document or follow up on the judge's instructions.
- Due to this inaction, Rowell remained incarcerated for over ten days past the time he should have been released.
- A different public defender eventually reviewed the file, presented the document to the court, and secured Rowell's immediate release.
- Rowell suffered a loss of earning capacity and significant mental anguish and loss of liberty, but sustained no physical injury or impact.
Procedural Posture:
- Rowell filed a legal malpractice action against the Office of the Public Defender in the trial court.
- The jury found the Public Defender negligent and awarded Rowell damages for lost earning capacity and mental anguish.
- The Office of the Public Defender filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing the impact rule barred the mental anguish award.
- The trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for Rowell.
- The Office of the Public Defender appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the award of noneconomic damages based on existing precedent but certified the question to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 impact rule bar a plaintiff from recovering damages for emotional distress in a legal malpractice action where the attorney's negligence caused an extended period of wrongful pretrial imprisonment, but the plaintiff suffered no physical impact?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lewis
No, the impact rule does not prohibit the recovery of emotional distress damages in this specific context. While the impact rule generally requires a physical injury to recover for emotional distress to prevent fraudulent claims, it is not an inflexible doctrine. The court reasoned that the relationship between a criminal defense attorney and a client creates a special professional duty, and it is highly foreseeable that negligence leading to extended incarceration would cause emotional harm. The court noted that 'citizens of a free society can conceive of no greater injury than the continued unjust deprivation of liberty.' Because the attorney held the 'keys to the jailhouse door' (the exculpatory document) and negligently failed to use them, the causation of harm was clear and the damages were measurable, negating the need for the impact rule's protections against speculative claims.
Concurring - Justice Wells
No, the plaintiff should be able to recover damages similar to those available in false imprisonment cases. Justice Wells reasoned that since a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must prove actual innocence to succeed, the damages for a loss of liberty resulting from malpractice should logically align with damages for false imprisonment. False imprisonment allows for recovery of mental suffering and humiliation without requiring physical impact; therefore, an innocent person negligently kept in jail by their attorney should have the same remedy.
Concurring - Justice Pariente
No, the impact rule should not bar recovery here, and the rule itself should be abolished entirely. Justice Pariente argued that the impact rule is an 'outmoded skepticism' regarding mental injuries that leads to arbitrary denials of valid claims. She advocated for replacing the arbitrary impact rule with a traditional foreseeability analysis, noting that in this case, the emotional harm was a clearly foreseeable consequence of the attorney's breach of duty.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant but narrow exception to Florida's 'impact rule,' which traditionally bars recovery for emotional distress absent physical injury. By recognizing that the 'loss of liberty' is a unique harm distinct from standard negligence, the Court aligns legal malpractice involving wrongful incarceration with other exceptions like wrongful birth. It emphasizes that when causation is clear—specifically when an attorney holds exculpatory evidence but fails to use it—the policy reasons for the impact rule (preventing fraudulent claims) vanish. This ruling ensures that criminal defense attorneys can be held liable for the non-economic consequences of gross negligence that deprives a client of freedom.
