Wilson v. Clancy
No reporter information provided (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney is not liable for malpractice when they provide correct legal advice that the client subsequently fails to follow. Evidence of a deceased client's silence on the matter of that advice, offered to prove the advice was never given, is inadmissible if its low probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice from jury speculation.
Facts:
- In 1968, attorney Clancy prepared wills for Dr. and Mrs. Hurney, which would have given the Plaintiff a one-eighth share of their combined estate upon the death of the survivor.
- By 1987, the Hurneys' health had declined, and Dr. Hurney engaged Clancy to draft a new will for him alone.
- This 1987 will created trusts for Mrs. Hurney and another relative, with the residue to be split in half between the Plaintiff and another person upon the termination of the trusts.
- For the 1987 will to be effective, Dr. Hurney needed to fund the trusts with his property, but most of the couple's valuable assets were held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- Dr. Hurney did not sever the joint tenancies or re-title the assets into his sole name before his death.
- Dr. Hurney predeceased Mrs. Hurney, causing all jointly-held property to pass directly to Mrs. Hurney by operation of law, outside of his 1987 will.
- Upon Mrs. Hurney's later death, the property passed according to her 1968 will, resulting in the Plaintiff receiving a one-eighth share instead of the one-half share envisioned by Dr. Hurney's 1987 will.
Procedural Posture:
- A disappointed beneficiary (Plaintiff) filed a legal malpractice suit against the testator's attorney (Clancy) in the U.S. District Court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Following discovery, the court directed the defendant to file a motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a legal malpractice action, is a defendant-attorney entitled to summary judgment when his sworn testimony that he provided correct advice to a now-deceased client is unrefuted by direct evidence, and the plaintiff's only counter-evidence is an affidavit attesting to the client's silence on the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Smalkin, District Judge.
Yes. An attorney is entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff fails to produce competent, admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding the attorney's alleged negligence. The defendant attorney, Clancy, testified that he repeatedly advised Dr. Hurney to re-title the couple's jointly-held assets into his sole name to effectuate the 1987 will. Sound advice that is not followed by the client does not constitute malpractice. The plaintiff's sole counter-evidence is an affidavit from Dr. Hurney's bookkeeper stating that Dr. Hurney never mentioned this advice to her. While this evidence of silence is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801, it is inadmissible under Rule 403. Its probative value is extremely low and speculative, as there could be many reasons for Dr. Hurney's silence, and it is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice that would arise from letting a jury guess the reason for it. Because the plaintiff cannot refute Clancy's testimony with admissible evidence, no triable dispute exists, and Clancy is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in legal malpractice suits, particularly when the client is deceased. It affirms that a defendant-attorney's sworn, unrefuted testimony can be sufficient to win on summary judgment, preventing the plaintiff from getting to a jury based solely on a challenge to the defendant's credibility. The court's application of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude evidence of 'silence' as overly speculative and prejudicial sets a precedent for how to handle such negative evidence. This reinforces the summary judgment standard that requires a non-moving party to present affirmative, admissible evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Clancy