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

damagesattorneystatuteappealmotionhabeas corpusmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticecivil proceduremotion to dismiss
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneynegligencestatutetrialmotionhabeas corpusmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticedefense attorneymotion to dismiss

Related Cases

F.D.I.C. v. O’Melveny & Myers, 969 F.2d 744, 61 USLW 2033
View Case »
Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646, 60 USLW 2765
View Case »
Graham by Graham v. Wyeth Laboratories, Div. of American Home Products Corp., 906 F.2d 1399, 59 USLW 2056, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 132, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,488
View Case »
Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4399
View Case »
Hogan v. Zletz, 43 F.R.D. 308, 11 Fed.R.Serv.2d 933, 154 U.S.P.Q. 230
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740

Facts

In 1989, James Noske was charged with second-degree assault after an incident involving a firearm. He hired attorney Joseph Friedberg, who did not pursue a self-defense strategy that Noske had wanted. Noske was convicted and subsequently sought postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. After years of legal battles, he obtained habeas corpus relief in 1999, leading to the vacating of his conviction. In 2001, he filed a legal malpractice suit against Friedberg, which was dismissed by the district court for being time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations.

In July of 1989, Noske was arrested and charged with five counts of second-degree assault after he fired a gun in the air and then pointed it at his neighbors. Noske hired Friedberg to represent him.

Issue

Did Noske's legal malpractice claim accrue at the time of his conviction or when he obtained postconviction relief?

The issue we must decide is whether a legal malpractice action against a criminal defense attorney based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the plaintiff's underlying criminal trial accrues at the time of the plaintiff's conviction or when postconviction relief is subsequently granted.

Rule

A legal malpractice cause of action based on a criminal conviction resulting from alleged ineffective assistance of defense counsel accrues when the cause of action can withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is six years.

Analysis

The court determined that Noske's legal malpractice claim could not have survived a motion to dismiss until he received habeas corpus relief in 1999. Until that point, his criminal conviction was valid and created a presumption that Friedberg's actions did not cause any damages. The court emphasized that allowing a civil malpractice claim to proceed without overturning the underlying conviction would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Put simply, until Noske was granted habeas corpus relief in 1999, his legal malpractice claim could not withstand a Rule 12.02(e) motion to dismiss because, absent the conviction being overturned, the conviction's presumption of regularity prevented Noske from demonstrating that Friedberg proximately caused his damages and that but for Friedberg's alleged negligence he would have been acquitted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, concluding that Noske's legal malpractice claim did not accrue until he received habeas corpus relief in 1999, thus allowing the claim to proceed.

Therefore, in this case, the policy against allowing a defendant to collaterally attack a valid criminal conviction in a subsequent civil proceeding outweighs the policy of preventing stale claims.

Who won?

James Noske prevailed in the case because the court agreed that his legal malpractice claim did not accrue until he obtained relief from his criminal conviction, allowing him to pursue the claim.

Friedberg is correct in stating that in order for the cause of action to accrue and survive a motion to dismiss, at least some damages must occur as the result of the alleged negligence and the exact amount of damages need not be known.

You must be