CHERYL STEELE v. S. MICAH SALB
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 194
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Steele, an African American woman, resigns from USDA in 2000 and files a Title VII complaint alleging constructive discharge among other claims.
- District Court granted summary judgment in 2005 against Steele on most Title VII claims, including the constructive-discharge claim; court found no evidence of intolerable conditions.
- On appeal, Salb replaced Steele’s prior counsel and filed a brief that did not address the constructive-discharge issue; Salb later acknowledged this omission.
- Court of Appeals reversed the district court on hostile work environment and retaliation claims in 2008 but remanded; Salb continued working on remand, then withdrew; Steele settled with USDA in 2009 for $150,000.
- Steele files a legal malpractice action against Salb in 2009; Salb counterclaims for unpaid legal fees; trial court grants Salb summary judgment on malpractice and on most fees, with a partial award on remand.
- This appeal challenges the trial court’s summary judgments and the order to amend the judgment, with respect to both the malpractice claim and the counterclaim for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation in legal malpractice | Steele would have prevailed on appeal absent Salb's failure to challenge the constructive-discharge judgment. | No genuine issue of material fact; Salb's omission did not causally affect the outcome. | No genuine issue; Steele would not likely have prevailed absent Salb's omission. |
| Counterclaim for unpaid fees for the appeal | Salb is not entitled to any fees if malpractice is proven; and the appeal work should be barred. | Fees for the appeal were owed; the malpractice finding does not negate appellate fees. | Salb awarded $20,800.42 for appeal work; affirmed. |
| Fees for settlement work | If Salb's representation ended before settlement, he should not receive contingency fees from the settlement. | If Salb substantially performed and was willing to complete the representation, he may be entitled to the contingency fee. | Remand appropriate to determine whether Salb was terminated or resigned; settlement-fee portion reversed for further fact-finding. |
| Amendment of judgment | Amendment may be improper if based on disputed fee issues. | Court should modify judgment as needed to reflect fee determinations. | Court vacated and remanded to consider survivability of the counterclaim and any related amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breezevale, Ltd. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957 (D.C. 2005) (case-within-a-case framework for causation in legal-malpractice claims)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (S. Ct. 2004) (constructive-discharge standard requiring intolerable working conditions)
- Greenberg v. Sher, 567 A.2d 882 (D.C. 1989) (contingency-fee entitlement where attorney terminates unless completion obligated)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 1992) (requirement that adverse-party activity be supported by admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203 (D.C. 1985) (causation in legal-malpractice case; 'case within a case' concept)
- Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662 (D.C. 2009) (elements of a legal-malpractice claim including causation)