Jessup & Conroy, P.C. v. Seguin
2012 R.I. LEXIS 110
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Seguin retained the law firm in 2001 to represent her in two Rhode Island Family Court actions (divorce and paternity).
- The firm appeared in both cases on October 9, 2001, which became complex due to a paternity dispute involving Seguin’s daughter.
- Seguin obtained a large cash settlement from her former employer; settlement funds were impounded and placed in escrow by Family Court on November 18, 2001.
- A 2001 property-settlement agreement purportedly designated the firm (Richard Jessup, Jr.) as escrow agent for part of the settlement funds.
- The firm withdrew as Seguin’s counsel on January 6, 2003, citing her requests for baseless motions and nonpayment of fees.
- In July 2004, Seguin and her ex-husband executed an addendum to the property settlement requiring escrow funds to be deposited in irrevocable trusts for their daughter; in August 2006 the firm deposited funds into two Schwab trust accounts after Family Court ordered accounting and distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on Seguin’s counterclaim was proper | Seguin failed to present competent evidence; claims are time-barred or lack standard-of-care proof | Seguin's claims arose from ongoing settlement-related conduct, not mere malpractice | Yes; summary judgment affirmed; Seguin failed to show genuine issues of material fact |
| Whether Seguin’s continuing-fraud/conspiracy claims are timely | Most claims relate to events within the three-year legal-malpractice period | Claims span 2003–2007, outside the three-year window | No reversal; claims not sufficient to defeat summary judgment under limitations periods |
| Whether expert testimony was required to oppose a legal-malpractice claim | Standard of care requires expert testimony to prove malpractice | Expert testimony not required for all opposing evidence; other materials suffice | Yes; expert testimony required to establish standard of care for legal malpractice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourg v. Bristol Boat Co., 705 A.2d 969 (R.I. 1998) (nonmoving party must show competent evidence of a genuine issue of material fact)
- Gallo v. National Nursing Homes, Inc., 106 R.I. 485 (Ri. 1970) (opp. party must present substantial evidence, not mere legal conclusions)
- Wright v. Zielinski, 824 A.2d 494 (R.I. 2003) (cannot rely on witness names alone to oppose summary judgment)
- Cronan v. Iwon, 972 A.2d 172 (R.I. 2009) (expert testimony generally required in legal-malpractice claims)
- Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461 (Ri. 2003) (standard of care lies beyond common knowledge; expert needed)