Tig Insurance v. Giffin Winning Cohen & Bodewes, P.C.
444 F. 3d 587 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a negligent act to constitute the proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the conduct. An unforeseeable, extraordinary chain of events, including a third party's disproportionate litigation response to a motion based on false information, breaks the chain of legal causation.
Facts:
- Female professors sued Illinois State University (ISU) for gender discrimination in pay.
- ISU's initial law firm, Giffin Winning, received two 'gender equity studies' from ISU in 1994.
- In October 1996, Giffin Winning failed to produce these studies in response to a discovery request.
- A new law firm, Latham & Watkins, took over ISU's defense.
- A disgruntled former ISU employee, William Gorrell, independently gave the studies to the plaintiffs' attorney, Joel Bellows.
- Gorrell falsely told Bellows that the studies were based on a secret 'planning policy database' that ISU was concealing.
- Another ISU employee, Anna Wells, testified that she compiled the studies by hand from paper documents over several weeks and that no such database existed.
- The judge in the underlying discrimination case ultimately found that the database Gorrell described did not exist.
Procedural Posture:
- In the underlying gender discrimination case, Varner v. ISU, plaintiffs' attorney filed a motion for sanctions against ISU and Giffin Winning for failure to produce documents.
- Latham & Watkins, representing ISU, defended against the sanctions motion, and ISU's insurer, TIG Insurance Company, paid Latham's $1.2 million in fees.
- TIG Insurance Company sued the Giffin Winning law firm for legal malpractice in the United States District Court, seeking to recover the $1.2 million it paid to Latham.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Giffin Winning, dismissing TIG's case.
- TIG Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Giffin Winning as the appellee.
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 law firm's negligent failure to produce documents in discovery proximately cause, as a matter of law, the $1.2 million in attorney's fees incurred by successor counsel to defend against a subsequent sanctions motion that was based on a false conspiracy theory about a non-existent database?
Opinions:
Majority - Evans, Circuit Judge.
No. A law firm's failure to produce documents does not proximately cause a subsequent, massive expenditure in attorney's fees when those fees are the result of an unforeseeable chain of events. Proximate cause consists of two parts: cause in fact and legal cause. Legal cause is a question of foreseeability, asking whether the injury is of a type a reasonable person would see as a likely result of their conduct. Here, the $1.2 million in fees was not a foreseeable result of Giffin Winning's discovery error. It was the product of a bizarre sequence of events: a disgruntled ex-employee (Gorrell) independently providing the documents, misleading opposing counsel about a non-existent database, opposing counsel filing a sanctions motion based on a conspiracy to hide this phantom database, and successor counsel (Latham) launching an army of 27 attorneys to defend against the motion. This chain of events was not reasonably foreseeable. While discovery failures are common, it is not foreseeable that one will spawn a million-dollar legal bill to defend against a motion based on a fabricated conspiracy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the foreseeability requirement of legal cause in malpractice actions, setting a clear limit on the scope of a negligent attorney's liability. It clarifies that a defendant is not responsible for damages arising from an extraordinary and unforeseeable reaction by third parties to the initial negligence. The ruling prevents the original negligent act from becoming a blank check for all subsequent, tangentially related litigation costs, particularly when those costs are driven by intervening factors like false information and a disproportionate strategic response by new counsel. This precedent serves to contain the scope of damages in malpractice cases to those that are a direct and predictable consequence of the attorney's breach of duty.
Unlock the full brief for Tig Insurance v. Giffin Winning Cohen & Bodewes, P.C.