Duncan v. Klein
313 Ga. App. 15
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Duncan sued Klein and Greene, Buckley, Jones & McQueen for legal malpractice based on allegedly erroneous advice that NGK could discriminate in favor of its Japanese employees and that Duncan had no valid federal discrimination claim.
- Klein initially advised Title VII coverage; after reviewing a Fifth Circuit treaty decision, Klein advised NGK could lawfully discriminate, effectively barring any claim.
- Duncan resigned in August 2001 to attend law school, believing he had no recourse due to Klein's advice.
- Duncan later pursued a possible federal claim, filed with the EEOC in February 2002 and a Maryland federal suit in 2002, which he settled in June 2004.
- The trial court granted Klein and the firm summary judgment on several damages theories and held that only time-barred claims from the NGK action could remain; it clarified that damages for law school enrollment and related costs were not recoverable.
- On cross-appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on back-pay damages for claims that could have been asserted timely, and held that negligence did not support punitive damages or attorney fees, and that damages for attending law school were not proximately caused by Klein’s alleged malpractice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge proximate causation | Duncan asserts his constructive discharge claim would have been viable in Georgia if advised properly. | Klein contends the Maryland federal claim viability and timeliness precluded recovery. | No reversible error; causation insufficient as settlement foreclosed adjudication and federal law could recognize the claim. |
| Punitive damages viability | Expert testimony shows serious shortcomings in Klein's research and advice could support punitive damages. | Negligence or gross negligence alone does not warrant punitive damages. | No punitive damages; existing record shows only gross negligence, which is insufficient. |
| Attorney fees recoverability | Bad faith or stubborn litigiousness could support attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. | No evidence of bad faith or other grounds for fees. | No attorney fees; failure to show bad faith or other statutory grounds. |
| Damages for law school-related costs and emotional distress | Damages from attending law school and related costs were proximately caused by Klein’s malpractice. | Those damages were too remote and could be pursued in NGK action, not Klein's malpractice. | Affirmed; such damages are too remote and not proximately caused by the alleged malpractice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Millsaps v. Kaufold, 288 Ga. App. 44 (Ga. App. 2007) (proximate causation in malpractice claims)
- Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App. 35 (Ga. App. 2011) (summary judgment standard; burden on moving party)
- Huntington v. Fishman, 212 Ga. App. 27 (Ga. App. 1994) (constructive discharge under federal law; causation)
- Duke Galish, LLC v. Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP, 288 Ga. App. 75 (Ga. App. 2007) (viability and settlement considerations in causation analysis)
- Beasley v. A Better Gas Co., Inc., 269 Ga. App. 426 (Ga. App. 2004) (proximate cause and foreseeability limitations)
- White v. Rolley, 225 Ga. App. 467 (Ga. App. 1997) (proximate cause; intervening decisions affect liability)
- Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, 167 Ga. App. 411 (Ga. App. 1983) (emotional damages require physical injury except certain exceptions)