Friday, September 2, 2016
It's a new school year and Professional Responsibility professors everywhere are teaching students the elements that establish an attorney-client relationship.
As the Preface to the ABA Model Rules notes
for purposes of determining the lawyer's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive law external to these Rules determine whether a client-lawyer relationship exists.
Thus, a decision issued yesterday by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice action is a timely one.
The purported representation related to a medical practice dispute where the attorney (Duddy) clearly represented one side in negotiations with its chief executive officer Savell.
The [lower] court found that Savell failed to adduce evidence that he had “sought legal advice or assistance” from Duddy, thereby failing to satisfy the first prong of the Mangan test. Mangan, 2001 ME 7, ¶ 9, 763 A.2d 1189; see also Oceanic Inn, Inc. v. Sloan’s Cove, LLC, 2016 ME 34, ¶ 26, 133 A.3d 1021 (“The nonmoving plaintiff . . . must make out a prima facie case for its claim.”). Savell argues on appeal, as he did in the trial court, that the series of email exchanges between himself and Duddy amounted to prima facie evidence of an attorney-client relationship.
Savell contends that the first prong of the Mangan test is satisfied because “[i]n every email [he] reiterated to Duddy his request for payment” and therefore he “repeatedly asked Duddy for assistance.” The summary judgment record shows that Savell indeed made various requests and demands of Duddy. For instance, in his October 9 email to Duddy, Savell made the demand, “I want my [$]187[,]402 paid directly to me”; Savell’s October 11 email states, “I would like to have my share of the net proceeds received and placed in escrow after [SMP’s] closing. . . . Thank you for your anticipated cooperation”; and Savell’s October 14 email tells Duddy that he is “requesting that EMMC’s legal [counsel] be made aware” that he wanted the money placed in escrow.
Contrary to Savell’s contention, however, the uncontroverted email exchanges show that Savell did not seek legal advice or assistance from Duddy. As opposed to asking questions of or voicing concerns to Duddy in an effort to seek legal advice or assistance, Savell simply sought to use Duddy as a vehicle, in his capacity as an attorney for SMP and SPC, to relay his conviction that certain escrowed funds were due him. Requests or demands that an attorney obtain his client’s acknowledgement of a claim for monies owed by the client to the claimant do not by themselves constitute the seeking of legal assistance within the purview of Mangan, and do not give rise to an attorney-client relationship.
The court also declined to impose liability on other grounds
Savell argues, in the alternative, that even if he was not Duddy’s client, Duddy owed him a duty as a nonclient based on the multifactor third-party beneficiary test that we adopted in Canders, 2014 ME 133, ¶ 16, 105 A.3d 439. The multifactor balancing test involves analysis of the following six favors: “(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to benefit the plaintiff; (2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury; (5) the policy of preventing future harm; and (6) the extent to which the profession would be unduly burdened by a finding of liability.” Trask v. Butler, 872 P.2d 1080, 1084 (Wash. 1994); see also Canders, 2014 ME 133, ¶ 16, 105 A.3d 439 (adopting the multifactor third-party beneficiary test created by the Trask court).
Because Savell notes in his statement of material facts that Duddy represented SPC and SMP, and because Duddy’s representation of Savell individually would have given rise to a conflict of interest with Duddy’s other clients, Duddy could not have owed Savell a duty of care as a nonclient.