Lancaster v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 17 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2006-CA-00814-COA.,2006-CA-00814-COA.
• Citation: 961 So.2d 768
• Parties: Jimmy L. LANCASTER, Appellant v. J. Joshua STEVENS, Jr. and H. Scott Ross, Appellees.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

961 So.2d 768

Jimmy L. LANCASTER, Appellant v. J. Joshua STEVENS, Jr. and H. Scott Ross, Appellees.

No. 2006-CA-00814-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

July 17, 2007.

Kristy L. Bennett, attorney for appellant.

Jan F. Gadow, Rodney A. Ray, W. Wright Hill, Jr., Jackson, attorneys for appellees.

Before LEE, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ.

LEE, P.J., for the Court.

¶ 1. The present appeal involves a complaint for legal malpractice filed by Jimmy Lancaster against his attorneys for mishandling the appeal of his conviction of capital murder. This case originated in December 1981 in Chickasaw County when Deputy Robert Kirby went to Lancaster's house to serve him with an arrest warrant and was shot and killed by Lancaster. A Chickasaw County jury found Lancaster guilty of capital murder. Joshua Stevens and Scott Ross represented Lancaster at trial and on direct appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Lancaster v. State, 472 So.2d 363 (Miss.1985). John Booth Farese assisted in preparing Lancaster's motion for rehearing, which was denied.

¶ 2. Lancaster, still represented by Stevens and Ross, paid $10,000 for his habeas corpus motion and federal appeals. A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, but the petition was found to be without merit and was denied. On March 28, 1990, Stevens and Ross filed a brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Lancaster's behalf. However, the brief was filed in an improper form and the court advised Lancaster's attorneys that unless the error was corrected the appeal would be dismissed. The error was not corrected, and the Fifth Circuit struck Lancaster's brief for failure to comply with the page limitations set out in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(g) and Fifth Circuit Local Rule 28.1. Stevens and Ross failed to notify Lancaster that the brief had been stricken and failed to file a corrected brief. On May 7, 1990, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Lancaster's appeal for failure by his attorneys to prosecute.

¶ 3. The last communication Lancaster received from his attorneys was on February 20, 1990, in a letter that stated that Lancaster would be the "first to know" the outcome of his appeal. Over a year passed and Lancaster heard nothing about the status of his appeal. On June 23, 1991, he wrote to the clerk of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking about the status of his appeal. The clerk responded on June 27 advising Lancaster that his appeal had been closed since March 29, 1990. Over the next eighteen months Lancaster attempted to locate counsel to prosecute his appeal. He initially tried to contact his previous attorneys but was unsuccessful. An inmate and friend of Lancaster's, Jerry Young, offered to help Lancaster with his legal proceedings. Lancaster began requesting his file from his attorneys on May 26, 1992. He and Young continued to request his file through phone calls and letters for the next six months. On several occasions, Lancaster's attorney or a secretary promised the file would be sent.

¶ 4. On December 8, 1992, Lancaster filed a pro se complaint for legal malpractice and breach of contract in the Circuit Court of Clay County against Stevens and Ross. At the time Lancaster filed the complaint for legal malpractice his file had not been sent, but he received it later in the month. On March 30, 2006, the Circuit Court of Clay County granted summary judgment in favor of Stevens and Ross finding that Lancaster failed to meet the burden of proof for legal malpractice.

¶ 5. Lancaster now appeals to this Court citing the following issues: (1) it was reversible error for the trial court to grant summary judgment on his breach of contract claims; (2) it was reversible error for the trial court to fail to consider his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim when it ruled on defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (3) it was reversible error for the trial court to fail to determine if the defendants' conduct resulted in Lancaster's Rule 60(b) motion being denied because it was untimely.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6. This Court applies a de novo standard of review to the grant or denial of summary judgment by a trial court. Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So.2d 152, 156(¶ 9) (Miss. 2004). When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate. M.R.C.P. 56(c); Russell v. Orr, 700 So.2d 619, 622(¶ 10) (Miss.1997).

DISCUSSION

I. WAS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANCASTER'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS?

¶ 7. Lancaster argued to the circuit court that even if the court ruled against him on his legal malpractice claim, the matter should proceed to trial on his claims of bad faith breach of contract and reckless infliction of emotional distress. Lancaster argues that the trial court used the wrong burden of proof in requiring him to prove that had his attorneys properly prosecuted his case, he would have been successful on appeal. Finding this issue dispositive, the trial court did not address the reckless infliction of emotional distress or breach of contract claims in its ruling. In granting Stevens's and Ross's motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled as follows:

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that had the Defendants properly defended or prosecuted his case, he would have been successful, and but for the Defendants' negligence he would have been granted a new trial and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would have granted his Writ of Habeas Corpus. Plaintiff's burden of proof is identical whether proceeding in tort or breach of contract.

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and therefore the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be sustained.

Legal malpractice

¶ 8. To recover for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence the following: "(1) Existence of a lawyer-client relationship; (2) Negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling his client's affairs entrusted to him; and (3) Proximate cause of the injury." Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 633 (Miss.1987). As to the third factor, proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that, "but for his attorney's negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action." Wilbourn v. Stennett, Wilkinson & Ward, 687 So.2d 1205, 1215 (Miss.1996).

¶ 9. Using the "but for" test, Lancaster cannot succeed on a legal malpractice claim. Lancaster's arguments to the Fifth Circuit were whether he was denied a fair trial due to (1) the presence of law enforcement officers in the courtroom on the day of closing arguments and (2) the trial court's denial of his proposed self-defense jury instruction. Both of these arguments were addressed and denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court in his first appeal. Lancaster, 472 So.2d at 363. During Lancaster's murder trial, the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, stated that "even admitting that the deputy started it, I think the deputy breaking and running twice and going and trying to hide" precluded a jury instruction on self-defense. Id. at 365. The supreme court agreed that the self-defense instruction was properly denied. Id. The supreme court also found that the law enforcement officers allowed within the rail of the courtroom did not influence the jury's decision. Id. at 368. The trial court expressed concern about having sufficient security for the courtroom since Lancaster was white and the deputy he killed was black and there had been recent demonstrations involving racial concerns in the area. Id. The trial court also noted that an "explosive situation" existed which accounted for the presence of an unusually large number of officers in the courtroom. Id. We find that the trial court gave sufficient justifications for its ruling on the two issues that would have been appealed to the Fifth Circuit had the brief been filed correctly. Also, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on these two issues. We cannot find that but for Stevens's and Ross's negligence, Lancaster would have been successful on appeal.

¶ 10. The issue of legal malpractice is without merit. However, the discussion does not end here as we find that the trial judge erred in failing to address the remaining issues before the court.

Breach of contract

¶ 11. Regardless of the merit of the legal malpractice claim, Lancaster argues that he can still succeed on a breach of contract claim because the "but for" standard used by the trial court is not applicable to a breach of contract action. Lancaster refers this Court to Hurst v. Southwest Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 610 So.2d 374, 377 (Miss.1992) (Hurst I)¹, in which the supreme court allowed a breach of contract action against an attorney who abandoned her clients' appeal without discussing whether the appeal would have been successful. The Hursts' attorney perfected an appeal on behalf of the defendants but never filed a brief despite repeated extensions. Id. The appeal was ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution. Id.

¶ 12. Lancaster paid $10,000 with the expectation that his attorneys would ensure the proper filing of his appeal. Even if Stevens and Ross felt the appeal to the Fifth Circuit was futile, they still undertook the appeal and accepted payment and, thus, "incurred an obligation to press ahead absent a proper withdrawal." Hurst I, 610 So.2d at 382. An attorney who abandons an appeal without informing his client or being properly relieved by the court of record is guilty of breaching an implied contractual duty. Id.; Myers v. Miss. State Bar, 480 So.2d 1080, 1092 (Miss.1985). Stevens and Ross admit that an attorney/client relationship existed and that they breached their...