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

plaintiffattorneyliabilitytrialtestimonymalpracticeforeclosurelegal malpracticejury instructions
plaintiffattorneyliabilitytrialtestimonymalpracticelegal malpracticejury instructions

Related Cases

Matter of Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184, 577 N.E.2d 30, 573 N.Y.S.2d 39
View Case »
McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 102 Conn.App. 23, 925 A.2d 352
View Case »
Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258, 64 USLW 2287
View Case »
Rosner v. Jiro Trading Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 312354
View Case »
White v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 639 F.Supp. 82
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646, 60 USLW 2765

Facts

Gordon and Jessie Hizey, along with others, sought legal advice from Timothy Carpenter regarding the sale of a commercially zoned property. After facing financial difficulties and potential foreclosure, they entered into a purchase and sale agreement with a buyer, intending to restructure their loan. Carpenter drafted a joint venture agreement that did not obligate the buyers personally, leading to complications when the buyers went bankrupt. The plaintiffs later sued Carpenter, claiming he had a conflict of interest and failed to represent their interests adequately.

Gordon and Jessie Hizey, Baryldean Jo Carlson, Guy and Doris Fenimore, and Jeri Pickering sought legal advice from Timothy Carpenter regarding the sale of an 11.5 acre parcel of commercially zoned property in Mount Vernon, Washington.

Issue

In a legal malpractice action, may the jury be informed of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Professional Conduct either directly through jury instructions or by the testimony of experts who refer to the CPR or RPC?

In a legal malpractice action, may the jury be informed of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Professional Conduct either directly through jury instructions or by the testimony of experts who refer to the CPR or RPC?

Rule

The court held that violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) or the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) do not create a standard for civil liability in legal malpractice cases.

The court held that violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) or the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) do not create a standard for civil liability in legal malpractice cases.

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' argument that the jury should be informed of the CPR and RPC, concluding that these rules do not establish a standard of care for attorneys in malpractice actions. The court emphasized that the CPR and RPC are intended for disciplinary purposes and do not create private causes of action. Therefore, the trial court's exclusion of references to these rules was appropriate to avoid misleading the jury.

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' argument that the jury should be informed of the CPR and RPC, concluding that these rules do not establish a standard of care for attorneys in malpractice actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the jury may not be informed of the CPR or RPC in legal malpractice actions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the jury may not be informed of the CPR or RPC in legal malpractice actions.

Who won?

Timothy Carpenter prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that he had breached the standard of care required in legal malpractice.

Timothy Carpenter prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that he had breached the standard of care required in legal malpractice.

You must be