Mark Halbman v. Mitchell J. Barrock, 2017 WI 91

Plaintiff Mark Halbman sued his former attorney Mitchell J. Barrock for legal malpractice, alleging Barrock's representation caused him damages in an underlying case.
At trial Halbman presented a case-in-chief but the circuit court dismissed his malpractice claim for failure to prove damages.
The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding Halbman failed to meet his prima facie burden as to damages.
Halbman petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Courtraising two issues: whether the court of appeals erred in affirming dismissal for lack of proof of damages, and whether the circuit court erroneously precluded evidence of a first jury verdict of $182,250 when the second-trial verdict established the value of the underlying case.
Barrock countered that the malpractice issues stemmed from Halbman’s subsequent counsel (Levine) and that no new or different legal issues warranted Supreme Court review.
After briefing and oral argument, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed review as improvidently granted rather than deciding the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming dismissal for failure to prove damages	Halbman: trial record supported a prima facie showing of damages and the dismissal was erroneous	Barrock: Halbman failed to prove damages; malpractice issues attributable to Halbman’s later counsel	Review dismissed as improvidently granted; court declined to reach or reverse the lower courts’ determinations
Whether the circuit court erred in excluding evidence of the first jury verdict ($182,250) as establishing the value of the underlying case	Halbman: the first verdict was admissible and relevant to damages	Barrock: value was conclusively established at the second trial; no basis to admit the first verdict	Review dismissed as improvidently granted; court did not decide the evidentiary question

Nedvidek v. Kuipers, 317 Wis. 2d 340 (2009) (example of WI Supreme Court explaining dismissal as improvidently granted)
State v. Welda, 317 Wis. 2d 87 (2009) (another published explanation of dismissal as improvidently granted)
State v. Gajewski, 316 Wis. 2d 1 (2009) (published dismissal explanation)
State v. Townsend, 299 Wis. 2d 672 (2007) (published dismissal explanation)
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court practice of dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted)
Izumi v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 (1993) (another example of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted)
New York v. Uplinger, 467 U.S. 246 (1984) (example cited regarding dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted)