Simko v. Blake
532 N.W.2d 842, 448 Mich. 648 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's duty of care is to act with the ordinary learning, judgment, or skill of a reasonably prudent attorney under similar circumstances. This duty does not require an attorney to do more than what is legally adequate to vindicate a client's rights, and an attorney is not liable for malpractice for good-faith tactical decisions when a legally sufficient defense was raised.
Facts:
- A state police officer stopped to assist a driver who was seeking medical attention for his passenger, Arthur Simko.
- Simko appeared to be in medical distress, as he was flushed, perspiring, and had labored breathing.
- While waiting for an ambulance, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered drug paraphernalia, two pistols, ammunition, and 988 grams of cocaine.
- Simko was subsequently arrested and charged with serious drug and firearm offenses.
- During Simko's criminal trial, his attorney, Marvin Blake, presented a defense but did not call Simko's personal physician as a witness.
- The physician could have testified that Simko's medical symptoms were side effects of prescribed medication for a pinched nerve.
- Blake also did not call Simko's wife as a witness or investigate the name of a hotel where Simko had stayed, which could have corroborated his story and protected him from impeachment.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Simko was tried in a state trial court for felony drug and firearm possession.
- During the criminal trial, defense counsel Marvin Blake's motions for a directed verdict were denied by the trial judge.
- A jury convicted Simko, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
- While Simko's criminal appeal was pending, he and his family filed a civil legal malpractice action against Blake in the trial court.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed Simko's criminal conviction due to insufficient evidence, after he had served over two years in prison.
- In the malpractice suit, the trial court granted summary disposition for the defendant, Blake, dismissing the case.
- The plaintiffs, the Simkos, appealed the dismissal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the malpractice suit.
- The Simkos then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's 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 breach the duty of care by relying solely on a legally sufficient defense that ultimately succeeds on appeal, without presenting additional evidence that might have prevented the client's initial wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mallett, J.
No. An attorney does not breach the standard of care by raising a legally complete and ultimately successful defense, even if other strategies might have prevented an initial adverse outcome. The duty of an attorney is to exercise the reasonable skill, care, and judgment of an average practitioner, not to guarantee a specific result or insure a client against all possible misfortune, including judicial or jury error. Decisions about which witnesses to call or what evidence to present are matters of trial tactics and professional judgment; mere errors in judgment made in good faith are not grounds for a malpractice action. Because Blake correctly identified the legal insufficiency of the evidence against Simko and raised that defense, he fulfilled his duty, and his tactical choices cannot form the basis for a malpractice claim.
Dissenting - Levin, J.
Yes. An attorney of ordinary learning, judgment, and skill should not bet a client's life on a single legal defense, eschewing other viable means of defense, simply because they believe that one defense is legally sufficient. A reasonably diligent attorney would present alternative theories and evidence to protect against the possibility of trial court error or an unreasonable jury verdict. There can be more than one proximate cause of an injury; the trial judge's error in denying the directed verdict does not absolve Blake of potential liability if his negligent failure to present additional evidence was also a cause of Simko's wrongful two-year imprisonment. The majority improperly engages in fact-finding by concluding Blake's omissions were reasonable trial tactics without a factual record.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the "judgmental immunity rule," which protects attorneys from malpractice liability for honest, good-faith strategic decisions in the course of litigation. It establishes that the standard of care is not one of perfection or of guaranteeing a win at the trial level. By focusing on the legal adequacy of the defense raised, the court insulates attorneys from being second-guessed with the benefit of hindsight, even when a client suffers significant harm like imprisonment before being exonerated on appeal. The decision prioritizes protecting attorneys' professional discretion over providing a remedy for clients harmed by a minimalist, though ultimately correct, legal strategy that fails to persuade a fallible judge or jury.
