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

plaintiffdamagesattorneysubpoenaappealhearingtestimonypleamalpracticewillmisdemeanorlegal malpracticeguilty plea

plaintiffdefendantattorneypleamalpracticemisdemeanorlegal malpractice

Related Cases

Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 511 N.E.2d 1126, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605

Facts

Paul Carmel, a licensed securities salesman, advised clients to transfer their securities to an investment service that came under investigation for securities violations. He was subpoenaed to testify at a Martin Act hearing and retained the law firm Lunney & Crocco for representation. Following the hearing, Carmel was indicted on multiple charges and ultimately pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Martin Act. He later sued his attorneys for malpractice, alleging they failed to inform him of the potential criminal consequences of his testimony and other legal rights.

Plaintiff, Paul Carmel, worked as a licensed securities salesman with the brokerage firm of Fittin, Cunningham & Lauzon. Among the offerings of that firm was the investment service of Michael Starbuck, Inc. & Associates. From 1978 to 1980, plaintiff advised various Fittin clients to transfer their securities to the Starbuck operation, promising them guaranteed returns on their investments.

Issue

Did Paul Carmel state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice against his attorneys despite his guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation?

To state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from negligent representation in a criminal proceeding, plaintiff must allege his innocence or a colorable claim of innocence of the underlying offense.

Rule

To establish a cause of action for legal malpractice in a criminal proceeding, a plaintiff must allege innocence or a colorable claim of innocence of the underlying offense; if the conviction remains undisturbed, no cause of action will lie.

Here, because plaintiff's conviction by plea of a misdemeanor violation of the Martin Act has not been successfully challenged, he can neither assert, nor establish, his innocence.

Analysis

The court determined that Carmel's guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation of the Martin Act precluded him from asserting a claim of innocence. Since he could not successfully challenge his conviction, he failed to meet the necessary legal standard to establish a malpractice claim against his attorneys. The court emphasized that public policy prevents the maintenance of a malpractice action when the underlying criminal conviction is intact.

But, because he cannot assert his innocence, public policy prevents maintenance of a malpractice action against his attorney. This is so because criminal prosecutions involve constitutional and procedural safeguards designed to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect criminal defendants from overreaching governmental actions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision to dismiss Carmel's malpractice claim, concluding that he could not state a cause of action due to his undisturbed conviction.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Who won?

Lunney & Crocco prevailed in the case because the court found that Carmel's guilty plea was the proximate cause of his damages, not any alleged malpractice by the attorneys.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Foondle v. O’Brien, 346 P.3d 970

Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S237

United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906

In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 190 P.3d 535, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,070, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,171

Whittaker Corporation v. United States, 825 F.3d 1002, 82 ERC 1725, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6129, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5687