Articles Posted in Legal Malpractice

Where plaintiff filed a legal malpractice claim based on an attorney’s advice regarding a contract to purchase real property, summary judgment for the attorney was affirmed because the contract terminated before the attorney was hired, and the plaintiff therefore could not show causation or proximate cause.

In Buhler v. Lefkovitz & Lefkovitz, PLLC, No. M2025-00210-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2025), the plaintiff was party to an installment sales contract to purchase real property. The time for a balloon payment was extended by the sellers twice, but prior to the third agreed upon date for the final balloon payment, the plaintiff informed the sellers that she “could not and would not make the balloon payment.” The sellers denied the plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline again, and the December 31, 2021, deadline passed.

On January 24, 2022, the sellers’ attorney sent the plaintiff a written notice of default. After receiving this letter, the plaintiff hired defendant attorney. When the plaintiff subsequently made installment payments, the sellers returned those funds. Upon the advice of defendant attorney, the plaintiff filed a petition for relief under the bankruptcy code. The defendant attorney stated that his hope was to have the contract ruled an executory contract that could be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee, but that plan was unsuccessful.

The plaintiff could not prove his Tennessee legal malpractice claim without expert proof that the defendant law firm breached the standard of care.

In Mamadou v. Gatti, Keltner, Bienvenu & Montesi, P.C., No. CT-3240-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff was represented by the defendant law firm in a workers’ compensation case. In a trial before an administrative judge, the plaintiff was awarded around $101,000. That amount was increased slightly by the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The last sentence of the commission’s opinion stated that the “matter [was] remanded to the Administrative Judge for all further proceedings as may be necessary in this claim.” When the award was disbursed to the plaintiff, he signed a document stating that he was satisfied with the services he received from the defendant law firm. Later, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint claiming that the defendant’s representation in the workers’ compensation claim fell below the applicable standard of care.

The defendant law firm submitted an affidavit from one of its attorneys stating that they complied with the standard of care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on several bases, including that the plaintiff did not have the required expert proof to support his claim. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently ruled that public policy did not prevent an insurance company from bringing a legal malpractice claim against its insured’s attorney as the subrogee of the insured.

In Westport Insurance Corporation v. Howard Tate Sowell Wilson Leathers & Johnson, PLCC, No. M2023-01168-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024), plaintiff was the insurance carrier for a company called Brands. A truck driver’s Kentucky-based employer hired Brands to perform a driver history report before hiring the driver. Brands pulled three years of driving records and reported that the record was clean. Had they pulled five years, however, they would have found the driver’s accident history. The driver was hired by the company and was later involved in a serious car accident in Tennessee.

Multiple lawsuits were filed in relation to this car accident, and Brands was named as a defendant. Plaintiff insurance company was Brands’ liability insurance carrier. Plaintiff hired defendant law firm to represent Brands in the underlying suits, and defendant agreed to abide by Plaintiff’s litigation guidelines. At one point an attorney from defendant firm performed initial research into the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, but that research was abandoned, as the attorney believed it was not a viable defense. Defendant never discussed the personal jurisdiction defense with plaintiff or Brands. Defendant eventually filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of duty. Defendant advised Brands that if the motion was not granted, settlement was advised.

In a legal malpractice case where one of plaintiffs’ own experts admitted that the law regarding a certain type of tax liability was unsettled at the time defendant attorneys advised plaintiffs, the jury verdict for defendant was upheld.

In Estate of Hawk v. Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel P.C., No. E2022-01420-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2024), plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against defendants related to certain tax advice. In 2003, defendants advised plaintiffs during a transaction related to the sale of the assets of two bowling alleys. A company called MidCoast Investments expressed interest in purchasing the assets, and it claimed to have a way to save plaintiffs from being liable for certain taxes related to the transfer.

In a letter to plaintiffs, defendants stated that MidCoast appeared to be legitimate and that it had conducted many similar transactions. This letter suggested obtaining financial information in order to negotiate a letter of intent.

Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim accrued when he received the order stating that some of his claims in a previous case were dismissed with prejudice.

In Abdou v. Clark, No. M2023-01461-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2024), plaintiff hired defendants to represent him in a lawsuit against several individuals. During the course of that litigation, plaintiff grew unhappy with defendants’ actions on his behalf. Plaintiff terminated defendants as his attorneys in July 2022, and he filed this pro se legal malpractice claim in February 2023. The trial court dismissed the legal malpractice action based on the statute of limitations, and the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reviewed multiple allegations on which plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was based. First, it affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, noting that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide a basis for civil liability.