Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

attorneystatuteappealsummary judgmentmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice
plaintiffattorneyappealsummary judgmentmalpractice

Related Cases

Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058
View Case »
Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033
View Case »
Lopez v. United States, 474 U.S. 1054, 106 S.Ct. 789 (Mem), 88 L.Ed.2d 767
View Case »
Natta v. Zletz, 418 F.2d 633, 163 U.S.P.Q. 675
View Case »
Peters v. Hyatt Legal Services, 211 Ga.App. 587, 440 S.E.2d 222
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, 345 N.J.Super. 119, 783 A.2d 756

Facts

Denise Gilles underwent a colonoscopy in February 1996, which led to complications and a potential medical malpractice claim against her physician. She retained attorney Arthur L. Raynes to pursue this claim. After receiving a favorable report from a medical expert, Raynes unexpectedly terminated the representation in January 1998, just weeks before the statute of limitations would run, advising Gilles to seek another attorney. Gilles did not act immediately to find new representation and ultimately missed the deadline to file her claim.

The record does not indicate exactly how much communication plaintiff and Raynes had with each other in the ensuing months. This much at least is clear. At Raynes's instruction, plaintiff obtained and delivered to him the relevant medical records.

Issue

Did attorney Arthur L. Raynes's withdrawal from representing Denise Gilles occur without material adverse effect on her ability to protect her medical malpractice claim, thereby constituting legal malpractice?

The issue then, as we view it, is whether in the totality of the circumstances, Raynes's withdrawal, considering both the manner in which it was done and its timing, was accomplished without 'material adverse effect' on plaintiff's interests in that it was attended by those steps 'reasonably practicable' to protect her interests.

Rule

An attorney may withdraw from representation if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client's interests, and must take reasonable steps to protect the client's interests upon termination of representation.

To the extent here relevant, that rule provides that where the conduct of the client does not justify the attorney's withdrawal, the attorney 'may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client….'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Raynes's withdrawal was reasonable given the circumstances, including the timing of the withdrawal and the lack of clear communication regarding the statute of limitations. The court noted that Raynes had sufficient time to file a complaint after receiving a favorable expert report but chose not to do so. The court found that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Raynes's actions did not adequately protect Gilles's interests.

Clearly the determination of reasonableness is ordinarily circumstantially dependent, and we are satisfied that a finder of fact would be justified in finding from the circumstances here that the timing and method of withdrawal were not reasonable.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of Raynes's withdrawal.

The summary judgment appealed from is reversed and we remand for further proceedings.

Who won?

Denise Gilles prevailed in the appeal because the court found that there were unresolved factual issues regarding the attorney's withdrawal and its impact on her ability to pursue her claim.

The appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Raynes's withdrawal from representation allowed Gilles a reasonable opportunity to protect her medical malpractice claim.

You must be