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

lawsuitattorneyhearingmalpracticeleasebaildefense attorneycommon law
defendantattorneylawyernegligenceliabilityhearingsummary judgmentmalpracticeleasebaillegal malpracticerespondent

Related Cases

In re Disciplinary Action Against Giese, 662 N.W.2d 250, 2003 ND 82
View Case »
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985, 68 USLW 4132, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1352, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1897, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 915, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 122
View Case »
San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494, 50 A.L.R.4th 913
View Case »
Commonwealth v. Mosher, 103 Mass.App.Ct. 1105, 219 N.E.3d 261 (Table), 2023 WL 5563268
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hawkins v. King County, Dept. of Rehabilitative Services, Division of Involuntary Treatment Services, 24 Wash.App. 338, 602 P.2d 361

Facts

Michael Hawkins was arrested for possession of marijuana and appointed Richard Sanders as his defense attorney. During their meeting, Hawkins expressed a desire to be released from jail. Sanders was informed by Hawkins' mother and a psychiatrist that Hawkins was mentally ill and dangerous. Despite this, at the bail hearing, Sanders did not disclose this information, as he was focused on advocating for his client's release. Hawkins was released on bail and later assaulted his mother, leading to the lawsuit against Sanders for malpractice.

On July 1, 1975, Michael Hawkins was booked for possession of marijuana. Following his court appointment as Hawkins' defense counsel on July 3, 1975, Richard Sanders conferred with Hawkins for about 45 minutes, at which time Hawkins expressed the desire to be released from jail.

Issue

Did attorney Richard Sanders breach a legal or ethical duty by failing to disclose his client's mental state during the bail hearing, and did he have a common law duty to warn potential victims of his client's dangerousness?

The Hawkinses essentially present two arguments: First, that by his failure at the bail hearing to disclose the information he possessed regarding Michael Hawkins' mental state, defense counsel Sanders subjected himself to liability for malpractice, as court rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate such disclosure on ethical and legal grounds.

Rule

An attorney has a duty to advocate zealously for their client's interests, and the common law duty to warn potential victims only arises when there is clear evidence that a client intends to commit a violent act.

We defined the elements of a legal malpractice action in Hansen v. Wightman, 14 Wash.App. 78, 88, 538 P.2d 1238, 1246 (1975), as the existence of an attorney-client relationship, The existence of a duty on the part of a lawyer, failure to perform the duty, and the negligence of the lawyer must have been a proximate cause of damage to the client.

Analysis

The court analyzed the ethical obligations of attorneys and concluded that while Sanders had information about Hawkins' mental state, he was not legally required to disclose it at the bail hearing. The court emphasized that the rules governing bail hearings do not specify who must provide relevant facts, and that Sanders' primary duty was to advocate for his client's release. Furthermore, since Hawkins' mother was already aware of the potential danger, there was no obligation for Sanders to warn her.

While it can be argued that the draftsmen of JCrR 2.09 assumed defense counsel would participate in furnishing information for the court, there is no indication as to the length to which defense counsel should go in revealing information damaging to his client's stated interests.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Sanders from the lawsuit, concluding that he did not breach any duty owed to the Hawkinses and that his actions were consistent with his obligations as a defense attorney.

The decision of the superior court granting summary judgment dismissing the respondents as party defendants is affirmed.

Who won?

Richard Sanders prevailed in the case because the court found that he did not have a legal or ethical obligation to disclose his client's mental state or to warn potential victims.

Sanders asserts the Hawkinses have failed to demonstrate that he breached any duty owed to them and, as an attorney appointed by the court to represent an indigent defendant, that he was a quasi-judicial officer, immune from civil liability.

You must be