Cooke v. Williams, 349 Conn. 451

Plaintiff, Ian T. Cooke, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Cooke filed a state habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance by his criminal trial counsel, and subsequently retained attorney John R. Williams and his law firm for representation.
After his habeas petition was denied, Cooke sued Williams and the firm for legal malpractice, fraud, and related claims, asserting negligent prosecution of his habeas action.
The trial court dismissed Cooke’s malpractice claims as unripe because his underlying conviction had not been invalidated; the Appellate Court affirmed except as to a distinct fraud claim.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether a criminal malpractice claim against a former attorney requires “exoneration,” i.e., the plaintiff’s conviction having been invalidated, as a necessary predicate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether criminal malpractice claims require prior overturning of conviction	Malpractice claim should proceed regardless of exoneration	Malpractice claim unripe unless conviction invalidated	Exoneration is a necessary element, but not a jurisdictional bar
Whether lack of exoneration is a subject matter jurisdiction bar	Lack of exoneration is not jurisdictional; goes to sufficiency	Lack of exoneration is jurisdictional; dismissible	Lack of exoneration addresses sufficiency, not jurisdiction
Whether distinct fraud claims may proceed absent exoneration	Fraud claim, unrelated to conviction validity, should proceed	Fraud claim is indistinct from malpractice	Fraud claim re: fee dispute may proceed if not challenging conviction
Appropriate procedural mechanism for challenging insufficient criminal malpractice allegations	Should not be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds	Should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction	Should be challenged through a motion to strike, not to dismiss

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (establishes that a civil action for damages, whose success would undermine a criminal conviction, cannot proceed unless the conviction has been invalidated)
Taylor v. Wallace, 184 Conn. App. 43 (2018) (Connecticut’s Appellate Court adopted the exoneration rule, requiring postconviction relief for criminal malpractice claims)
Grimm v. Fox, 303 Conn. 322 (2012) (sets out general elements for a legal malpractice claim in Connecticut)
Bozelko v. Papastavros, 323 Conn. 275 (2016) (discusses legal malpractice claims but does not address exoneration requirement)