Howard v. Adams, 2012 Ark. App. 562

Howard sued Adams for breach of contract, professional negligence, and deceit over her handling of a potential claim against Watkins, who previously represented Howard and his father.
Adams helped recover property from the trust via a 2005 favorable result; Howard later claimed Adams did not pursue a Watkins malpractice claim and sought fees from the estate rather than Watkins's carrier.
Howard contends an oral contract existed to cap fees to Watkins's insurer; Adams asserts a contingency fee paid by Howard with a 2004 written contract and notes on the back.
The case proceeded to trial in 2011 with liability and damages bifurcated; the jury found Watkins liable for deceit but Adams not liable for negligence or deceit, and found no agreement to pursue Watkins’s claim.
The circuit court awarded certain attorney fees; the court later determined the action sounds primarily in tort, affecting fee recoveries and related issues.
The court directed verdict against Howard in his estate’s negligence claim and admitted some contested evidence over objections; cross-appeals followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions on contract interpretation and privity were required	Howard argues for instructions that resolve contract ambiguity in favor of his oral agreement.	Adams contends the dispute was over which contract governs, requiring no ambiguity instructions.	No reversible error; court properly refused ambiguity instructions.
Whether Howard could pursue damages in his individual capacity	Howard should be entitled to individual damages for Adams's conduct.	Estate damages only; pretrial ruling limited individual damages.	No abuse of discretion; damages were moot after liability ruling.
Whether the case-within-a-case method was improperly excluded	Howard should prove Watkins's malpractice via case-within-a-case evidence.	Evidence was properly limited; prejudice shown only if outcome affected.	No reversible error; evidence exclusion did not prejudice verdict.
Whether the directed verdict on the estate's negligence claim was proper	Estate could prove malpractice with expert testimony.	Estate lacked expert proof; separate privity limits apply.	Directed verdict proper; estate failed to prove malpractice against Adams.
Whether evidence of bankruptcies and prior suits was improperly admitted	Evidence relevant to credibility and to challenge Howard's veracity.	Evidence admissible for impeachment; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Evidence admitted; no abuse of discretion; credibility concerns warranted its use.

Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75 (Ark. 2012) (standard for instructing jury where amendments/ambiguities exist)
Pope v. Overton, 2011 Ark. 11 (Ark. 2011) (need for prejudice showing to reverse trial court rulings)
Armstrong Remodeling & Constr., LLC v. Cardenas, 2012 Ark. App. 387 (Ark. App. 2012) (standard for evidentiary rulings and prejudice)
Daggett v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 354 Ark. 112 (Ark. 2003) (expert testimony required for malpractice cases when applicable)
Clark v. Ridgeway, 323 Ark. 378 (Ark. 1996) (scope of contract for professional services and privity)
Mcdonald v. Pettus, 337 Ark. 265 (Ark. 1999) (privity and proximate contractual relationship required for malpractice claims)
Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen, 347 Ark. 996 (Ark. 2002) (privity requirement in legal malpractice context)