897 N.W.2d 491
Iowa2017Background
- Melissa Stender retained attorney Anthony Zane Blessum for divorce work (2008–2009); Blessum later had a sexual relationship with Stender while providing further legal services (2011–2012).
- Blessum prepared and Stender executed a will (June 2011); he also drafted and filed a QDRO late (filed Aug 2011) and sent a possibly time-barred demand letter to Stender’s ex-husband.
- Blessum physically assaulted and sexually assaulted Stender in June 2012; he pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury and was disciplined by the Iowa Supreme Court (license suspension).
- Stender sued Blessum in civil court alleging (inter alia) legal malpractice (divorce, will, and potential suit against ex-husband), breach of fiduciary duty, assault and battery, and punitive damages.
- At close of plaintiff’s case the district court directed verdict for Blessum on malpractice for the will and on the separate breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim; two malpractice theories (divorce representation and representation concerning suit vs. ex-husband), assault/battery, and punitive damages went to the jury.
- Jury found for Blessum on the two malpractice claims but for Stender on assault/battery and punitive damages; awarded $498,562.44. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney’s violation of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct (sexual relationship) creates a per se legal malpractice or fiduciary-duty cause of action | Stender: the sexual relationship itself (and rule violation) should be treated as per se malpractice / breach of fiduciary duty | Blessum: ethical violations are disciplinary, not automatic bases for civil liability; no per se rule | Court: Rejects per se rule; rule violations may be "some evidence" of negligence but cannot alone establish malpractice or fiduciary breach |
| Malpractice claim for drafting the will (failure to show legal harm) | Stender: Blessum induced her to get a will by false advice (exploiting fear), so drafting the will was malpractice even if the will was not defective | Blessum: no expert showing breach of standard of care or that legal services were negligent; no separate injury from the will | Court: Directed verdict proper — plaintiff lacked expert proof on standard of care/causation and no demonstrated legal injury separate from sexual relationship/assault |
| Breach of fiduciary duty based solely on sexual relationship | Stender: sexual relationship while client-lawyer suffices to state fiduciary breach | Blessum: sexual relationship alone, without adverse effect on legal services, does not establish fiduciary breach | Court: Sexual relationship alone insufficient; must show nexus — e.g., legal representation was compromised or fiduciary power was used to client’s disadvantage; directed verdict affirmed |
| Admissibility / preclusion of disciplinary findings, expert scope, medical records, juror / post-trial matters, and damage challenge timeliness | Stender: disciplinary findings and ethics opinion, broader expert testimony, medical records redactions and preclusion of relitigation should be admitted or given effect | Blessum: bar or limit these to avoid prejudice and to preserve right to challenge damages (also argued cross-appeal on damages) | Court: Exclusion of disciplinary opinion and some docs proper as irrelevant to the malpractice claims submitted; district court did not abuse discretion on expert scope, medical records, or witness testimony; Blessum’s cross-appeal on damages untimely and, on merits, damages were within evidentiary range |
Key Cases Cited
- Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for directed verdict)
- Ruden v. Jenk, 543 N.W.2d 605 (Iowa 1996) (ethical-rule violations are "some evidence" of negligence but not conclusive)
- Crookham v. Riley, 584 N.W.2d 258 (Iowa 1998) (expert testimony normally required to establish legal-malpractice standard of care; rules relevant but not dispositive)
- Kling v. Landry, 686 N.E.2d 33 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (leading authority holding sexual relationship alone is not actionable absent impact on legal representation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Blessum, 861 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 2015) (disciplinary decision finding rule violations by Blessum)
- Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 2003) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- Kuta v. Newberg, 600 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1999) (standard for reviewing excessive damages)