Tante v. Herring
94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3491, 453 S.E.2d 686, 264 Ga. 694 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A successful outcome in a legal representation precludes a claim for legal malpractice because malpractice must be based on the attorney's failure to exercise ordinary care in performing legal services. However, a client may still bring a separate claim for breach of fiduciary duty if the attorney misuses confidential information for personal advantage, regardless of the success of the legal services.
Facts:
- Laura and Bobby Herring retained attorney Thomas Edward Tante IV to represent Mrs. Herring in a claim for social security disability benefits.
- In the course of his representation, Tante gained access to Mrs. Herring's confidential medical and psychological reports.
- These reports indicated that Mrs. Herring had an impaired emotional and mental condition.
- During the period of representation, Tante engaged in an adulterous relationship with Mrs. Herring.
- The Herrings alleged that Tante used the confidential information about Mrs. Herring's vulnerable condition to persuade her to have an affair with him.
- The affair caused physical and mental harm to both Laura and Bobby Herring.
- Tante was ultimately successful in his representation, securing a favorable award of social security disability benefits for Mrs. Herring.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura and Bobby Herring sued their former attorney, Thomas Edward Tante IV, in a Georgia trial court for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Herrings on the issue of liability and denied Tante's motion for summary judgment.
- Tante, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Herrings.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the 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 a client have a viable claim for legal malpractice against an attorney who achieved a successful outcome in the representation, but who also allegedly used the client's confidential information to begin an adulterous affair?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunt, Chief Justice
No. A claim for legal malpractice requires that the attorney's failure to exercise ordinary care, skill, and diligence directly relates to the performance of the legal task for which the attorney was employed; a satisfactory result, therefore, precludes a claim for legal malpractice. The court reasoned that the elements of legal malpractice are employment, failure to exercise ordinary care, and damages proximately caused by that failure. The breach of duty must be linked to the performance of the legal services. Since Tante achieved the exact result for which he was hired—obtaining disability benefits for Mrs. Herring—there can be no claim that he failed in the performance of his legal duties. However, the court distinguished this from the Herrings' separate claim for breach of fiduciary duty. This claim is not based on negligence in legal performance but on the abuse of the attorney-client relationship. Tante, as a fiduciary, had a duty of utmost good faith and loyalty, which included protecting confidential information. By allegedly using confidential information about Mrs. Herring's mental state for his own advantage (to initiate an affair) and to the Herrings' detriment, he breached this fiduciary duty, giving rise to a separate, viable cause of action.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clearly bifurcating the concepts of professional negligence (malpractice) and breach of fiduciary duty in the attorney-client context. It establishes the principle that a successful outcome can shield an attorney from a malpractice claim, as that claim is tied directly to the quality and result of the legal services. However, the ruling simultaneously reinforces that an attorney's obligations are broader than mere competent performance; attorneys have a separate and enforceable fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidentiality. The decision clarifies that an attorney can be held liable for abusing the trust inherent in the relationship, even when their legal work is flawless, thus protecting clients from harms that are distinct from a negative case outcome.
