Reinaldo Bacallao v. Madison County, Mississippi
269 So. 3d 139
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2010 a grand jury indicted Reinaldo Bacallao for arson-related charges; private counsel Michael Malouf sought to withdraw and a public defender was appointed. Lisa M. Ross was assigned as Bacallao’s public defender in November 2010.
- Ross filed for discovery, sent a packet to Bacallao (disputed whether it included the order with reset court dates), and attempted phone contact. Ross testified she called twice on January 28, 2011 and left a voicemail warning of the January 31 status conference; phone records showed a voicemail was accessed shortly after the call.
- Bacallao failed to appear January 31; a bench warrant issued. He was arrested February 16, 2011 and jailed about seventy-eight days until released May 5, 2011 after Malouf (retained by family) moved to reinstate bond; the indictment was nolle prossed June 22, 2011.
- Bacallao sued Ross and Madison County for legal malpractice, alleging failures to communicate, investigate, and otherwise meet the standard of care; the county court (bench trial) found Bacallao failed to prove malpractice and excluded a set of Ross’s template client letters (exhibit 31). The circuit court affirmed.
- On appeal Bacallao raised four issues: alleged erroneous legal standard, verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, erroneous exclusion of exhibit 31, and failure to award sanctions against Madison County. The majority affirmed; Chief Justice Lee dissented, arguing the record lacked substantial evidence supporting Ross’s communications and that exhibit 31 should have been admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Bacallao's Argument | Ross/Madison County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard applied to malpractice claim | Ross breached duties of care and loyalty by failing to inform and adequately represent him | County applied correct standard; plaintiff must prove attorney negligence and proximate cause by preponderance | Affirmed: county and circuit courts applied proper standards and substantial evidence supports finding of no malpractice |
| Weight of the evidence (adequacy of representation) | Evidence overwhelmingly shows Ross failed to communicate, investigate, or act to prevent 78-day incarceration | Ross attempted multiple communications, mailed discovery, left voicemail, and client had duty to maintain contact; expert supported Ross’s actions | Affirmed: trial-court factual findings supported by substantial, credible evidence; not an unconscionable injustice |
| Exclusion of Exhibit 31 (Ross’s template letters) | Letters show Ross’s usual practice of notifying clients of court dates and would prove failure to follow it | Letters concerned other clients, late-produced, and prejudice/untimeliness justified exclusion | Affirmed: exclusion within trial court’s discretion; no shown prejudice to Bacallao |
| Sanctions under Miss. R. Civ. P. 11 | Madison County delayed admitting Ross’s employment status, causing extra expense; sanctions warranted | County reasonably believed Ross an independent contractor and later learned otherwise; sanction decision is discretionary | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; issue procedurally barred because plaintiff did not obtain trial-court ruling on sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Grissom, 214 So.3d 298 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard that appellate courts will defer to county-court factfinder if supported by substantial evidence)
- Patel v. Telerent Leasing Corp., 574 So.2d 3 (Miss.) (county-court non-jury judgments entitled to chancery-equivalent deference)
- Crist v. Loyacono, 65 So.3d 837 (Miss.) (distinguishing negligence-based malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty malpractice claims)
- Wilbourn v. Stennett, Wilkinson & Ward, 687 So.2d 1205 (Miss.) (elements plaintiff must prove to recover in legal malpractice negligence claim)
- Matthews v. City of Madison, 143 So.3d 571 (Miss.) (bench-trial standard: reversal only if findings are manifestly wrong)
- Mabus v. Mueller Indus. Inc., 205 So.3d 677 (Miss. Ct. App.) (failure to cite authority can be procedural bar)
- Blake v. Clein, 903 So.2d 710 (Miss.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- In re Spencer, 985 So.2d 330 (Miss.) (trial court has discretion to award sanctions under Rule 11)
- Donovan v. Burwell, 199 So.3d 725 (Miss. Ct. App.) (but-for causation requirement in malpractice damages)