Disclaimer: Information contained in pages and articles on this site provide general information and are not intended to provide legal advice on any specific legal matter or factual situation. This information is not intended to create or provide a lawyer-client relationship. It is not legal advice. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Read full Disclaimers and Legal Notices.  

"Suit Within a Suit" Requirement

Normally in a legal malpractice suits, a client not only has to prove malpractice, but also must establish that a money loss resulted from the attorney's negligence.  To establish this requires proving something about the underlying matter.  

The level of what must be proved regarding the underlying litigation (or underlying business or personal transaction) differs from state to state.  There are three general categories of the requirements.  I'll generalize, using litigation as the underlying matter. Some states allow or require.

Even within these categories, there is variation.  For example in category # 1 above, some states want the reference to be to what a "reasonable trier of fact, or a reasonable judge, as the case may be, would have done.  Other states want the reference to be to what the specific jury or judge would have done.

In most states the rule is that if the attorney’s error occurred in litigation, the "" doctrine requires the aggrieved party to show: (1) that the initial litigation, if handled properly, would have resulted in a judgment in that party's favor (the so-called suit within a suit rule); and (2) that the resulting judgment was collectable. E.g., see Jackson v. Urban, Coolidge, Pennington & Scott, 516 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

However, this requirement of proving the result of the litigation may be overcome in some jurisdictions.  It seems unfair to require a person claiming that a former lawyer bungled earlier litigation to show that the earlier suit, if properly handled, absolutely would have resulted in a judgment in that person's favor, when in all likelihood that case would have been settled rather than tried.  Statistically, most cases are settled, not tried.   Less than 5% of cases get past pre-trial and legal motions and settlements to a courtroom trial door.

Some jurisdictions permit a party in that position to show that the underlying suit had settlement value and to use that value as a measure of damages. Lieberman v. Employer's Ins. of Wausau, 419 A.2d 417 (New Jersey 1980); Merzlah v. Purcell, 830 P.2d 1278 (Mont. 1992). Cf. Alva v. Hurley, Fox, Selig, Caprari & Kelleher, 593 N.Y.S.d 728 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1993) (providing that New York law requires only proof of actual damages).

In Texas the case of Heath v. Herron, 732 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) affirmed a judgment against an attorney for malpractice based on expert settlement value testimony admitted without objection, about an underlying case which had been settled.  This is not the same level of case law as a case in which objection had been made at the trial level either to the testimony or the instructions on damages.  Likewise in 864 S.W.2d 662 Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd., (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993) the case involved a defendant in the underlying case who had settled after the malpractice of its attorney.  It was said: "The proper measure of damages is the difference between the value of the settlement handled properly and improperly. Heath v. Herron, 732 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied)."

Another way to say the above is to list in a checklist style, as follows.

The following items likewise can be listed in a checklist style.

More information can be found at the law blog at the Bluestone Law Firm site.

Helpful links for attorneys