Wood v. McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C.
256 Neb. 109, 1999 Neb. LEXIS 26, 589 N.W.2d 103 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's duty of care requires them to inform a client of unsettled legal issues relevant to a settlement agreement so the client can make an informed decision; the doctrine of judgmental immunity does not protect an attorney from a malpractice claim for failing to provide this information.
Facts:
- Beverly J. Wood hired attorney Timothy J. Pugh of the McGrath law firm to represent her in a divorce action.
- Pugh advised Wood to accept a settlement agreement.
- The settlement agreement excluded from the marital estate all of her husband's unvested stock options from his employer.
- The agreement also deducted approximately $210,489 from the value of the marital estate to account for potential future capital gains taxes on stock.
- At the time of the settlement, Nebraska law was unsettled on whether unvested stock options were marital property and whether potential capital gains taxes should be deducted when valuing marital assets.
- Pugh failed to inform Wood that the law on these two financial issues was unsettled and that a court might resolve them in her favor.
- Wood testified that she was never told about alternatives to the settlement or the potential outcomes of a trial regarding these issues.
- Wood stated she would not have signed the agreement had she known a court might have treated the stock options and capital gains taxes more favorably.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly J. Wood filed a legal malpractice action against the law firm McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C. in a Nebraska district court (trial court).
- At the close of Wood’s evidence at trial, the trial court sustained McGrath’s motion for a directed verdict.
- Wood, as appellant, appealed the directed verdict to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the judgmental immunity rule applied and protected the attorney's actions.
- Wood, as appellant, petitioned the Nebraska Supreme Court (highest court) for further review.
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 doctrine of judgmental immunity protect an attorney from liability for legal malpractice for failing to inform a client that the law regarding key issues in a settlement agreement is unsettled?
Opinions:
Majority - Connolly, J.
No. The doctrine of judgmental immunity does not apply to an attorney’s failure to inform a client of unsettled legal issues relevant to a settlement agreement. An attorney is not liable for an error in judgment on an unsettled point of law, but that immunity does not extend to the separate duty to inform the client of the uncertainty itself. The decision to settle belongs to the client, and for that decision to be meaningful, the client must be informed of relevant considerations, including that the law is 'uncertain, unsettled or debatable.' Because the client, not the attorney, bears the risk of settlement, the client must be given the necessary information to assess whether that risk is acceptable. Failing to inform a client of such risks prevents them from making an informed decision, which is a breach of the attorney's duty of care.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and limits the scope of the judgmental immunity doctrine for attorneys in Nebraska. It establishes a critical distinction between giving advice on an unsettled legal issue (which is protected) and failing to disclose the uncertainty of that issue to the client (which is not). The ruling reinforces the principle of client autonomy in settlement decisions by requiring attorneys to fully disclose legal risks. This holding likely increases the informational burden on attorneys in settlement negotiations, compelling them to research and communicate not just their recommendations, but also the legal landscape's ambiguities, to avoid malpractice claims.
Unlock the full brief for Wood v. McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C.