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

attorneypleasummary judgmentmalpracticelegal malpracticedefense attorneyguilty plea

plaintiffjurisdictionattorneynegligenceappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1117

Facts

Carol Peeler was an officer of Hillcrest Equities, Inc. and its subsidiary, under federal investigation for illegal tax write-offs. She hired attorney Darrell C. Jordan and paid a substantial retainer. After a lengthy investigation, she was indicted on multiple counts and ultimately pleaded guilty to one count in exchange for a plea deal. Peeler later claimed that Jordan failed to inform her of an immunity offer from the U.S. Attorney, which she learned about only after her guilty plea.

Peeler complains that prior to the time she pled guilty, Jordan failed to tell her that the United States Attorney had offered her absolute transactional immunity.

Issue

Whether a convicted individual can sue their defense attorney for legal malpractice without first proving their innocence or being exonerated.

The public policy of this State dictates that Peeler's own conduct is the sole cause of her indictment and conviction.

Rule

Public policy dictates that a convicted individual cannot pursue a legal malpractice claim against their attorney unless they have been exonerated, as their own criminal conduct is deemed the sole cause of their conviction.

As a result, only plaintiffs who have been exonerated are permitted to negate the sole proximate cause bar to their cause of action for professional negligence in these jurisdictions.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Peeler's conviction was solely due to her own actions, and since she had not been exonerated, she could not establish causation for her claims against her attorney. The court emphasized that allowing such claims would undermine the integrity of the legal system and allow convicts to shift the consequences of their crimes onto their attorneys.

Since Peeler has not been exonerated, her illegal acts remain the sole proximate and producing causes of her indictment and conviction as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Jordan and Hughes & Luce, concluding that Peeler's own conduct was the sole cause of her indictment and conviction.

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Jordan and Hughes & Luce.

Who won?

Jordan and Hughes & Luce prevailed because the court found that Peeler's criminal conduct was the sole cause of her conviction, and she had not been exonerated.

The trial court so held, the court of appeals so held, and we so hold.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Knight v. Aqui, 966 F.Supp.2d 989

McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782

Behrens v. Wedmore, 698 N.W.2d 555, 2005 S.D. 79

United States v. Bloate, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2012 WL 13157861

Rosner v. Jiro Trading Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 312354