Baker & McKenzie LLP v. Evans
123 So. 3d 387
Miss.2013Background
- Evans and related entities sued Baker & McKenzie and Joel Held in Mississippi circuit court for seven causes of action, including legal malpractice and breach of contract, with cross-claims by Laredo Energy Holdings and related entities.
- Texas litigation later determined Laredo owned Rig 12 and Evans ratified the mortgage on Rig 12, with damages awarded against Evans and related entities in the Texas proceeding.
- Evans alleged that Baker & McKenzie and Held gave conflicting or negligent advice across multiple matters, including servicing agreements, Laredo formation, and financing transactions, causing asset losses and liabilities.
- Mississippi trial produced a verdict of over $100 million in actual damages, with punitive damages and attorney’s fees; Evans and related plaintiffs were allocated portions of the verdict against Baker & McKenzie and Held.
- The trial court denied post-trial motions; Baker & McKenzie appealed, challenging collateral estoppel, JNOV, jurisdiction, jury instructions, indemnity, damages, and related rulings.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed liability against Baker & McKenzie but reversed on damages and remanded for a new trial on proximate cause and damages due to improper jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel applicability | Evans argues Texas findings preclude Mississippi causation issues. | Baker contends the Texas judgment estops Mississippi claims. | Collateral estoppel not applicable; Mississippi and Texas issues were not identical. |
| Impact of Texas findings on causation | Texas findings support causation by Baker & McKenzie’s conduct. | Texas ruling does not address malpractice or relationship with Evans. | Texas findings do not preclude causation in Mississippi; JNOV not warranted on this basis. |
| Personal jurisdiction | Mississippi long-arm statute and due process support jurisdiction over Baker & McKenzie. | Nonresident defendants lack sufficient minimum contacts. | Mississippi long-arm statute satisfied; due process not violated; jurisdiction proper. |
| Trial court jury instructions | D-8a and D-9a were necessary to allocate fault and prevent confusion. | Form of verdicts and sequencing could be adjusted; instructions were proper or curable. | Erroneous or absent central fault allocation instructions; reversible error requiring new trial on damages. |
| Indemnity instruction and damages allocation | D-CP 4 and D-CP 5 supported liability and cross-claims against Laredo. | Indemnity instruction improperly shifted liability and could cause double recovery. | Indemnity instruction improper; damages framework flawed; remand on damages needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. City of Laurel, 215 So.2d 256 (Miss. 1968) (indemnity guidelines in Mississippi)
- J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Forrest General Hospital, 34 So.3d 1171 (Miss. 2010) (noncontractual indemnity prerequisites; fault rules)
- Causey v. Sanders, 998 So.2d 393 (Miss. 2008) (Causey standard for punitive-damages procedures)
- Sorrells v. R & R Custom Coach Works, Inc., 636 So.2d 668 (Miss. 1994) (long-arm jurisdiction considerations)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)