Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneylawyerappealtrialpleahabeas corpusmalpracticelegal malpracticeguilty plea

plaintiffdefendanttrialpleamotionsummary judgmentmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103

Facts

Johnie N. Gibson was charged with drug-related offenses and hired attorneys Jerry Cunningham and Douglas Trant for his defense. Gibson alleged that the attorneys pressured him into pleading guilty by threatening to prosecute his elderly father and misrepresenting the potential sentence he would face. After pleading guilty, Gibson received a twenty-year sentence, which he later sought to vacate through a habeas corpus petition, but was denied. He subsequently filed a malpractice claim against his attorneys, which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On August 16, 1989, Johnie N. Gibson ('Gibson'), along with numerous co-defendants, was charged with committing drug-related offenses in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Issue

Whether a criminal defendant must obtain post-conviction relief in order to maintain a legal malpractice action against his defense lawyer.

The trial court held that he must.

Rule

A plaintiff in a criminal malpractice action must show that he has been exonerated, which requires obtaining post-conviction relief.

To meet this requirement, the plaintiff must obtain post-conviction relief.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that since Gibson did not obtain post-conviction relief, he could not maintain his legal malpractice claim. The court emphasized that allowing the claim to proceed would contradict the findings of the federal courts, which had already determined that Gibson's guilty plea was voluntary. The court also noted the difficulties in proving causation and damages in a criminal malpractice case, where the plaintiff's own criminality is a significant factor.

Because the plaintiff did not obtain such relief, the courts below correctly ruled that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal of Gibson's legal malpractice claim against his former attorneys, concluding that he could not maintain the claim without first obtaining post-conviction relief.

We now affirm.

Who won?

Trant and Cunningham prevailed in the case because the court found that Gibson's failure to obtain post-conviction relief barred his malpractice claim.

The state court granted Trant and Cunningham's motion to dismiss. In its order, the court stated: 'This Court has determined that in light of the Federal Courts' holding that Mr. Gibson's plea of guilty was, in fact, voluntary, and there exists no right or recovery in this action in this court, mandating dismissal of this case.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312

Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie, 538 F.Supp.2d 605

State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 186 Ariz. 218, 920 P.2d 784

Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377, 134 S.Ct. 1058, 188 L.Ed.2d 88, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 75,066, 82 USLW 4127, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,832, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1986, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2332, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 564

USACM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 764 F.Supp.2d 1210