Cardiac Anesthesia Services, PLLC v. Jon Jones
385 S.W.3d 530
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- CAS and Cookeville entered into two contracts with a fee-splitting provision; Jones drafted the agreements and suggested the fee-split; the fee-split violated Tennessee law (63-6-225).
- Cookeville sued CAS in 2006 for breach of contract and later argued the contract was illegal due to the fee-splitting provision; CAS defended and sought to enforce the contract.
- Court of Appeals later held the fee-splitting provision invalid and remanded for dismissal in CAS v. Cardiac Anesthesia Services, P.L.L.C., No. M2007-02561-COA-R3-CV ( Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
- CAS filed a legal malpractice action against Jones on October 27, 2010 alleging negligent drafting of the illegal contract.
- Jones moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations; the trial court held CAS’s claim time-barred; CAS appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery-time was adequate before summary judgment | CAS argues more discovery was needed | Jones argues waiver or no need for discovery | Summary judgment proper; discovery time not required to defeat |
| When the legal malpractice claim accrued under the discovery rule | CAS maintains accrual after 2009 Court of Appeals decision | Jones contends accrual earlier | Accrual occurred by Jan. 9, 2007; suit filed 2010 barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohl v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1998) (discovery rule in legal malpractice requires injury and knowledge to trigger statute of limitations)
- Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (two-element discovery rule for accrual in legal malpractice)
- Caledonia Leasing v. Armstrong, Allen, 865 S.W.2d 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (injury may be proved by having to defend the validity of documents)
- Lufkin v. Conner, 338 S.W.3d 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (motion to suppress can put client on notice of malpractice)
- Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995) (knowledge of injury may be constructive; need not know type of claim)
- Wilson v. Meares, 15 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (issue of knowledge of injury depends on circumstances, not necessarily attorney’s conduct)