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

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdamagesattorneynegligencepleamotionsummary judgmentfiduciarymalpracticelegal malpracticefiduciary dutybreach of fiduciary dutypiracy
contractbreach of contractdamagesattorneynegligencetrialpleasummary judgmentfiduciarymalpracticelegal malpracticesustainedfiduciary dutyduty of carebreach of fiduciary dutyguilty plea

Related Cases

In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 59 USLW 2242, 17 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1215
View Case »
General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 1164, 876 P.2d 487, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 63 USLW 2065, 128 Lab.Cas. P 57,741, 9 IER Cases 1089
View Case »
Spears v. First American eAppraiseIT, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1748514
View Case »
Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., Inc., 775 F.2d 1440, 3 Fed.R.Serv.3d 325
View Case »
Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2782, 59 Lab.Cas. P 13,051
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J.Super. 589, 90 A.3d 653

Facts

Eduardo Cortez, owner of a tax preparation business, was represented by attorney Joseph G. Gindhart during a federal investigation into fraudulent tax returns. Cortez alleged that Gindhart failed to negotiate a plea agreement despite repeated requests, leading to a harsher sentence after he pled guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. Cortez claimed that Gindhart improperly billed him for legal services related to a motion to disqualify and that he suffered damages as a result of Gindhart's negligence.

Cortez was the owner and operator of People's Multiple Services, a tax preparation business in Atlantic City. In 2004, after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commenced an investigation regarding the preparation of fraudulent tax returns, Cortez retained Gindhart to represent him. Gindhart represented Cortez until shortly after Cortez was indicted in April 2008.

Issue

Did Cortez's former attorney commit legal malpractice, breach of contract, or breach of fiduciary duty, and was exoneration a necessary prerequisite for his claims?

Did Cortez's former attorney commit legal malpractice, breach of contract, or breach of fiduciary duty, and was exoneration a necessary prerequisite for his claims?

Rule

To establish a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show the existence of an attorney-client relationship, a breach of duty by the attorney, that the breach was the proximate cause of damages, and that actual damages were incurred.

In order to survive summary judgment, Cortez had to show that the claims he asserted were viable. As to the legal malpractice claim, he was required to show that competent, credible evidence existed to support each of the elements of that negligence action, i.e., “1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship creating a duty of care upon the attorney; 2) that the attorney breached the duty owed; 3) that the breach was the proximate cause of any damages sustained; and 4) that actual damages were incurred.”

Analysis

The court found that Cortez failed to provide competent evidence to support his claims. Although he alleged that Gindhart did not negotiate a plea agreement, he could not demonstrate that he would have received a more favorable outcome had Gindhart acted differently. The court also clarified that exoneration was not a necessary prerequisite for a legal malpractice claim, but Cortez still needed to show actual damages resulting from Gindhart's alleged negligence.

Although we disagree with the trial court's reasoning that a vacation of Cortez's guilty plea or an exoneration were necessary pre-requisites to the legal malpractice action here, we review judgments, not opinions, and affirm for the reasons that follow.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Gindhart, concluding that Cortez's claims were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish a viable legal malpractice claim.

The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Gindhart, concluding that Cortez's claims were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish a viable legal malpractice claim.

Who won?

Joseph G. Gindhart and his law firm prevailed in the case because the court found that Cortez failed to demonstrate any breach of duty or proximate cause of damages resulting from Gindhart's actions.

The court found that Cortez failed to provide competent evidence to support his claims. Although he alleged that Gindhart did not negotiate a plea agreement, he could not demonstrate that he would have received a more favorable outcome had Gindhart acted differently.

You must be