§33.1 Generally
1. Austin v. Sneed, M2006-00083-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves a claim for legal malpractice. The client hired the lawyer to file suit in the United States District Court against the Metropolitan Police Department and several of its officers to recover damages for the use of excessive force. The District Court dismissed the claims against the Metropolitan Police Department and later dismissed the claims against the individual officers because the lawyer had failed to amend the complaint to name the officers individually despite having their names. After all his claims had been dismissed, the client filed a legal malpractice action against his former lawyer in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The lawyer conceded that he had been negligent but asserted that his former client’s excessive force claim against the individual officers was so weak that it never would have succeeded. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the client $24,008.50 in damages. On this appeal, the lawyer asserts that the trial court erred by finding that his former client would have prevailed with his federal excessive force claim because the police officers had not used excessive force. He also asserts that the trial court erred by granting a partial summary judgment on the necessity and reasonableness of his former client’s medical expenses. Finally, the lawyer insists that the client failed to prove that the exacerbation of his chronic back problems was caused by the conduct of the officers. We have determined that the portion of the judgment attributable to the medical expenses that the client incurred as a result of the officers’ excessive force must be reversed because the client failed to present competent evidence that his injuries were caused by the conduct of the officers. We have also determined that the portion of the judgment representing damages for pain and suffering and loss of capacity to enjoy life must be vacated, and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings." View opinion.
2. Nancy J. Strong v. John H. Baker, III, Esq. and Bullock, Fly & Hornsby -
M2007-00339-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this legal malpractice action, the trial court denied the former client’s motion to stay proceedings and granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney. The former client asserts on appeal that summary judgment was not proper because the underlying case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred is still pending, and therefore, damages cannot be established. We affirm the decision of the trial court."
View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves a claim for legal malpractice. The client hired the lawyer to file suit in the United States District Court against the Metropolitan Police Department and several of its officers to recover damages for the use of excessive force. The District Court dismissed the claims against the Metropolitan Police Department and later dismissed the claims against the individual officers because the lawyer had failed to amend the complaint to name the officers individually despite having their names. After all his claims had been dismissed, the client filed a legal malpractice action against his former lawyer in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The lawyer conceded that he had been negligent but asserted that his former client’s excessive force claim against the individual officers was so weak that it never would have succeeded. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the client $24,008.50 in damages. On this appeal, the lawyer asserts that the trial court erred by finding that his former client would have prevailed with his federal excessive force claim because the police officers had not used excessive force. He also asserts that the trial court erred by granting a partial summary judgment on the necessity and reasonableness of his former client’s medical expenses. Finally, the lawyer insists that the client failed to prove that the exacerbation of his chronic back problems was caused by the conduct of the officers. We have determined that the portion of the judgment attributable to the medical expenses that the client incurred as a result of the officers’ excessive force must be reversed because the client failed to present competent evidence that his injuries were caused by the conduct of the officers. We have also determined that the portion of the judgment representing damages for pain and suffering and loss of capacity to enjoy life must be vacated, and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings." View opinion.
2. Nancy J. Strong v. John H. Baker, III, Esq. and Bullock, Fly & Hornsby -
M2007-00339-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this legal malpractice action, the trial court denied the former client’s motion to stay proceedings and granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney. The former client asserts on appeal that summary judgment was not proper because the underlying case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred is still pending, and therefore, damages cannot be established. We affirm the decision of the trial court."
View opinion.