Baptiste v. Rohn

• Decision Date: 29 March 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2013-0104
• Parties: JESSICA BAPTISTE, Plaintiff, v. LEE J. ROHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LAW OFFICES OF LEE J. ROHN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

JESSICA BAPTISTE, Plaintiff, v. LEE J. ROHN, INDIVIDUALLY ANDD/B/A LAW OFFICES OF LEE J. ROHN, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2013-0104

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

March 29, 2016

Attorneys:

Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.,

Emily Shoup, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Plaintiff

Gordon C. Rhea, Esq.,

St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.

Lee J. Rohn, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis, Chief Judge

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a Pretrial Conference on March 16, 2016. At the Pretrial Conference, the parties presented oral argument on, inter alia, the following three issues: (1) the adoption of the "case-within-a-case" doctrine as the standard for civil legal malpractice cases in the Virgin Islands; (2) the applicable burden of proof in a civil legal malpractice case brought in the Virgin Islands; and (3) the appropriate award of damages in a Virgin Islands civil legal malpractice action.¹ The Court's rulings on each of these three issues, as previously announced orally on March 21, 2016, and the rationale for those rulings follow.²

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jessica Baptiste ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Lee J. Rohn, individually and d/b/a Law Offices of Lee J. Rohn ("Defendant"), alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract. (See Dkt. No. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently failed to file her personal injury lawsuit against HOVENSA within the applicable statute of limitations; that, as a result, her complaint against HOVENSA in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands was dismissed; and that the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges in the Complaint that Defendant "promised that she would pay . . . the value of the case against HOVENSA if the [dismissal] was not reversed," but has failed to do so. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant's alleged malpractice and breach of contract, as well as attorney's fees and costs. (Id.).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Legal Principles

To establish a legal malpractice claim, under Virgin Islands law, the plaintiff must prove "1) the attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty; 2) breach of that duty; 3) the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury, and 4) actual loss or damage." Simon v. Joseph, 59 V.I. 611, 621-22 (V.I. 2013) (quoting Moorehead v. Miller, 102 F.R.D. 834, 838, 21 V.I. 79 (D.V.I. 1984)). An essential element of a legal malpractice claim is proof of actual loss or damage. See Phaire v. Galiber-Babb, 26 V.I. 144, 147 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1991) ("[A] necessary element for a legal malpractice claim as a species of negligence is actual damage to the plaintiff[.]").³ However, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has not yet established the applicable standard for determining actual loss or damage in a civil legal malpractice action.

In a line of cases beginning with Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011), the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands held that, in the absence of Supreme Court precedent on a common law rule,⁴ courts in the Virgin Islands must conduct what has become known as a "Banks analysis" to determine which legal standard to adopt. See Better Bldg. Maint. of the V.I., Inc. v. Lee, 60 V.I. 740, 757 (V.I. 2014); Gov't of the V.I. v. Connor, 60 V.I. 597, 603 (V.I. 2014). In a Banks analysis, a court balances "three non-dispositive factors":

(1) whether any [local or federal] courts [in the Virgin Islands] have previously adopted a particular rule;

(2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and

(3) most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands.

Simon, 59 V.I. at 623 (citing Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 680-81 (V.I. 2012)).

B. Analysis

The Court recognizes that the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has held that the Restatements of the Law no longer constitute binding legal authority in the Virgin Islands. See Banks, 55 V.I. at 984. However, as the Supreme Court stated in Simon v. Joseph, 59 V.I. 611 (V.I. 2013), "[a]lthough only representing non-binding persuasive authority . . . the Restatements of the Law promulgated by the American Law Institute remain a helpful guide to determining how other jurisdictions approach the question of legal malpractice claims[.]" Id. at 623 (internal citation omitted). Section 53 of THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS provides:

In a lawyer-negligence or fiduciary-breach action brought by one who was the plaintiff in a former and unsuccessful civil action, the plaintiff usually seeks to recover as damages the damages that would have been recovered in the previous action or the additional amount that would have been recovered but for the defendant's misconduct. To do so, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for the defendant lawyer's misconduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable judgment in the previous action. The plaintiff must thus prevail in a "trial within a trial." All the issues that would have been litigated in the previous action are litigated between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's formerlawyer, with the latter taking the place and bearing the burdens that properly would have fallen on the defendant in the original action. Similarly, the plaintiff bears the burden the plaintiff would have borne in the original trial; in considering whether the plaintiff has carried that burden, however, the trier of fact may consider whether the defendant's lawyer's misconduct has made it more difficult for the plaintiff to prove what would have been the result in the original trial.

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 53 cmt. b.

1. The "case-within-a-case" doctrine.

Although the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has not expressly adopted a standard for adjudicating actual loss or damage for legal malpractice actions in the civil context, it has done so in the criminal context. In Simon v. Joseph, 59 V.I. 611 (V.I. 2013), the Supreme Court, after conducting a Banks analysis, adopted the majority rule in criminal legal malpractice actions that a criminal defendant "must have his convictions set aside [on appeal or by collateral attack] prior to filing suit for legal malpractice." Id. at 624-25. This requirement in a criminal legal malpractice action is akin to the traditional "case-within-a-case" standard in the context of civil legal malpractice actions. See, e.g., Zephir v. Bourne, 2012 V.I. LEXIS 5, 11-12 n.25 (V.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2012) (finding the petitioner "did not provide any evidence that he would have obtained a different result in the custody battle absent the[] shortcomings" of his former counsel);⁵ Moorehead, supra, 102 F.R.D. at 838 (stating that "[the plaintiff] is . . . required to establish by the preponderance of evidence that he would have recovered a judgment in the underlying defamation action, and that it would have been recoverable").

A survey of case law from other jurisdictions reveals that proof of actual loss or damage in a civil legal malpractice action requires the plaintiff to prove a "case within a case." In other words, the plaintiff must prove the merits of the underlying case.⁶

In determining whether this legal standard should be adopted in the Virgin Islands, the Court notes that the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has made clear that the plaintiff in a legal malpractice action must prove "actual loss or damage." See Simon, 59 V.I. at 622 (quoting Moorehead v. Miller, 102 F.R.D. 834, 838, 21 V.I. 79 (D.V.I. 1984)). This Court agrees with the many jurisdictions that have concluded that the most appropriate way of doing so is for the plaintiff "to prove that he had a viable cause of action against the party he wished to sue in the underlying case[.]" Kituskie v. Corbman, 714 A.2d 1027, 1030 (Pa. 1998). Accordingly, consistent with those jurisdictions, the Court finds that the "case-within-a-case" standard is an appropriate standard toadopt for civil legal malpractice actions.⁷ The Court further finds that adoption of the "case-within-a-case" standard for civil legal malpractice actions is "the soundest rule" for the Virgin Islands. The Court will therefore apply the "case-within-a-case" standard in this case.

2. The applicable burden of proof.

The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has established that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove each of the four elements of a legal malpractice claim. See Simon, 59 V.I. at 621-22. Plaintiff contends, however, that there is an exception to this general rule. Specifically, she argues that because Defendant's negligence in the underlying case "hinders" her ability to prove her claim against HOVENSA, the burden of proof should shift to Defendant "to prove that [Plaintiff] would not have recovered damages in the underlying case by way of judgment or settlement." (Dkt. No. 94 at 1). Defendant asserts that the burden of proof remains with Plaintiff. (See Dkt. No. 100 at 5-7).

In support of her argument that the burden of proof should shift to Defendant in this case, Plaintiff cites to Winter v. Brown, 365 A.2d 381, 385 (D.C. 1976). However, the Court of Appeals in Winter did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant attorneys. Rather, it affirmed thejudgment against the attorneys finding that "[a]t trial, appellees proved to the satisfaction of the jury that appellants 'were negligent in serving [appellees] as their lawyers' with the proximate result that appellees were deprived of a cause of action against Prince George's County that could successfully have been pursued, and that appellees were damaged thereby." Id. at 383.

Nonetheless, there is some support for the proposition that, in legal malpractice cases alleging professional negligence, the burden of proof on the issue of causation may be shifted to the defendant. For example, in California, the Court of Appeals has shifted the burden of proof to the defendant...