Foondle v. O'Brien
346 P.3d 970
| Alaska | 2015Background
- William Foondle was convicted at jury trial of felony DUI in Alaska based on prior DUI convictions, though he contested a prior North Dakota plea as involuntary.
- Public defenders Angela O’Brien and Daniel Lord represented him at trial; Foondle later discharged them and pursued post-conviction relief pro se.
- Superior Court Judge Bauman found the North Dakota plea had been altered without Foondle’s consent and set aside the felony characterization for sentencing, resulting in misdemeanor sentencing for the Alaska DUI.
- Foondle then sued O’Brien, Lord, and their supervisors for legal malpractice, claiming their alleged negligence caused longer incarceration and collateral consequences.
- The defendants moved to dismiss under Alaska R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the superior court dismissed with prejudice, relying on public-policy precedent that bars malpractice recovery by convicted criminals unless they establish actual innocence, and awarded the defendants attorney’s fees.
- Foondle appealed, arguing misapplication of public policy, denial of due process/access to courts by dismissal without trial, and error in awarding fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public policy bars malpractice recovery by a criminally convicted plaintiff | Foondle: dismissal misapplies public policy; he was effectively injured by attorneys’ negligence | Defendants: Shaw/Howarth bar recovery because plaintiff’s own criminal conduct is legal cause of incarceration unless plaintiff proves actual innocence | Court: Affirmed dismissal; public policy bars recovery absent actual innocence |
| Whether misdemeanor conviction can preclude malpractice claim when indictment charged felony | Foondle: conviction suffered jurisdictional defect; reduction removed right to sue | Defendants: Misdemeanor DUI is a lesser included offense; conviction stands and supports preclusion | Court: Affirmed; lesser-included conviction valid and bars claim |
| Whether Foondle was entitled to litigate innocence because he lacked effective opportunity to appeal | Foondle: counsel failed to appeal; thus he could not obtain review and preclusion should not apply | Defendants: Appeal was available; failure to appeal does not prevent preclusion; remedy for counsel’s failure is post-conviction relief, not civil malpractice suit | Court: Affirmed; availability of review (even if not pursued) means issue-preclusion applies; ineffective-assistance remedy is post-conviction relief |
| Whether awarding attorney’s fees to defendants was improper | Foondle: argues defendants should not be prevailing parties because dismissal was erroneous | Defendants: Won on merits and are prevailing parties entitled to fees | Court: Affirmed fee award; defendants prevailed and fee-amount challenge was waived for lack of briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 861 P.2d 566 (Alaska 1993) (public-policy rule: convicted persons generally may not recover malpractice damages unless they show actual innocence)
- Howarth v. State, Public Defender Agency, 925 P.2d 1330 (Alaska 1996) (applies Shaw; criminal conduct is superseding cause of incarceration and bars malpractice recovery)
- Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass’n v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657 (Alaska 2002) (standard of review discussion for motions to dismiss)