PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel - WBG
498 P.3d 1073
Alaska2021Background
- Perkumpulan (an Indonesian corporation) sued in Washington for an international fraud scheme; that federal suit was dismissed in 2014.
- Perkumpulan then sued in Alaska (in rem) to quiet title and for fraudulent conveyance against parties including PADRM Gold Mine, LLC, alleging Dressel scheme assets were used to buy Alaska property.
- The Alaska superior court granted summary judgment to PADRM after finding Perkumpulan lacked creditor status to maintain the fraudulent-conveyance claim once the Washington suit was dismissed, and awarded PADRM attorney’s fees.
- PADRM sought to collect on its judgment and identified only one asset: a potential legal malpractice claim Perkumpulan might have against its Alaska lawyers for bringing a defective claim.
- PADRM moved for a writ of execution to involuntarily assign that potential malpractice claim to itself; Perkumpulan had settled with its attorneys, expressly waiving any malpractice claims.
- The superior court denied the writ, concluding involuntary assignment of legal malpractice claims is barred by public policy; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska law allows involuntary assignment (by writ of execution) of a client’s legal malpractice claim | Statutory framework treats choses in action as property and execution may reach a judgment debtor’s property; statutes favor assignability | Public-policy protections for the attorney-client relationship, privilege, duty of loyalty, access to counsel, and risk of commodification bar involuntary assignment | Involuntary assignment of legal malpractice claims is prohibited under Alaska law; writ denied and order affirmed |
| Whether Perkumpulan’s settlement with its attorneys extinguished the malpractice claim (so nothing existed to assign) | PADRM implied there was a collectable claim to seize | Perkumpulan pointed to the settlement and release as extinguishing any claim | Court did not decide this question because it resolved the appeal on the broader rule against involuntary assignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc., 133 Cal. Rptr. 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (early decision holding assignment of legal malpractice claims barred by public policy)
- Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617 (Iowa 2020) (surveyed policy concerns and endorsed prohibition on involuntary assignment)
- Bohna v. Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin, 828 P.2d 745 (Alaska 1992) (approved assignment of proceeds from malpractice claim as settlement device)
- Bergen v. F/V St. Patrick, 686 F. Supp. 786 (D. Alaska 1988) (district court allowed writ to transfer claims generally; Alaska Supreme Court declined to follow that broad approach)
- Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos, 582 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 1991) (criticized involuntary assignment; emphasized trust and confidentiality in attorney-client relationship)
- Mat-Su Reg’l Med. Ctr., LLC v. Burkhead, 225 P.3d 1097 (Alaska 2010) (recognized public-policy basis for nonassignability of personal-injury claims)