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

defendantattorneytrialmotionmalpracticewilllegal malpractice
plaintiffdefendantattorneynegligenceappealhearingpleamotionmalpracticewilllegal malpracticecriminal procedure

Related Cases

Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392
View Case »
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261, 56 USLW 4733
View Case »
Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 254 Cal.Rptr. 853, 57 USLW 2481
View Case »
McDonald v. Emory Healthcare Eye Center, 391 Fed.Appx. 851
View Case »
Olfe v. Gordon, 93 Wis.2d 173, 286 N.W.2d 573
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

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

Facts

William Steele was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. He claimed that his attorney, Terrence Kehoe, had orally agreed to file a motion for postconviction relief but failed to do so in a timely manner. Steele's pro se motions for postconviction relief were rejected due to being filed after the two-year deadline. Consequently, he filed a legal malpractice complaint against Kehoe, which was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that Steele could not demonstrate actual innocence or that his conviction had been set aside.

The record reflects the following pertinent facts. William Steele was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Since this time, Steele has claimed that Terrence Kehoe, his privately retained appellate attorney, orally agreed to file a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on his behalf, but failed to do so in a timely manner.

Issue

Is it appropriate for a convicted defendant to maintain a legal malpractice action against defense counsel without first obtaining appellate or postconviction relief?

UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER A BELATED HEARING IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY WAS IN FACT RETAINED TO FILE A POST–CONVICTION MOTION AND, IF SO, TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUES THAT DEFENDANT ASSERTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN SUCH MOTION?

Rule

A convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or postconviction relief as a precondition to maintaining a legal malpractice action against defense counsel.

we find that, in a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following elements: (1) the attorney's employment; (2) the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty; and (3) the attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of the client's loss.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that without obtaining relief from the conviction or sentence, the defendant's own actions must be presumed to be the proximate cause of the injury. The court noted that monetary remedies are inadequate for incarcerated defendants and that appellate and postconviction remedies are available to address ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the court held that Steele's legal malpractice claim could not proceed until he had successfully challenged his conviction.

We agree with the above policy considerations set forth in these cases, and we find that we should follow the majority rule and hold that a convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or postconviction relief as a precondition to maintaining a legal malpractice action.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Steele's malpractice action, ruling that he must first obtain postconviction relief before pursuing such a claim against his attorney.

We answer the rephrased certified questions in the affirmative, approve the decision below, and disapprove Martin v. Pafford, 583 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Who won?

Terrence Kehoe prevailed in the case because the court ruled that Steele could not maintain a legal malpractice action without first obtaining appellate or postconviction relief.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that 'exoneration' is a prerequisite to a legal malpractice action arising from a criminal conviction.

You must be