Buchanan v. Leonard
428 N.J. Super. 277
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Buchanan appeals an order granting summary judgment to Leonard and Morgan Melhuish and dismissing his complaint with prejudice.
- The case centers on Buchanan's representation of the Kerrs in bankruptcy litigation and subsequent professional liability claims against Buchanan’s attorneys.
- NJPLIGA withdrew coverage in May 2005 after learning of Buchanan’s August 21, 1993 letter alleging he aided the Kerrs' bankruptcy misrepresentations.
- Expert reports by Capone (Kerrs' expert) and Sutton (Buchanan's expert) critique Buchanan’s handling of the Kerrs’ bankruptcy filings.
- The trial court held the defamation claim time-barred, and held the malpractice claim barred by the litigation privilege and lacking expert support; on appeal, the court reverses on privilege and remands for expert-discovery considerations.
- Buchanan’s insurer later pursued a declaratory judgment action leading to a coverage determination that Buchanan had coverage, which is independent of the malpractice proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buchanan's defamation claim is timely. | Buchanan contends the statements were defamatory per se. | Defendants argue the one-year statute of limitations expired before suit. | Defamation claim time-barred. |
| Whether the litigation privilege bars Buchanan's legal malpractice claim. | Buchanan argues privilege does not cover client-on-attorney malpractice. | Leonard's statements in a settlement memo are protected by the privilege. | Litigation privilege cannot bar client malpractice claim; reversed as to that claim. |
| Whether expert testimony was required to support the legal malpractice claim. | Duties of a lawyer can be established with expert testimony when not obvious. | Expert testimony is unnecessary if the duty is obvious as a matter of law. | Expert testimony required; remand to consider an expert report; privilege error acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loigman v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566 (N.J. 2006) (litigation privilege scope and limits; protects certain communications in judicial proceedings)
- Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 781; 5 Cal.App.4th 392 (Cal. 1992) (privilege not extended to bar malpractice claims against experts; persuasive authority)
- Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 712; 145 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. 2006) (no blanket extension of privilege to client malpractice claims against attorneys)