Rene DiBenedetto v. Timothy Devereux
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 274
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DiBenedetto was injured in 2010 and retained Conour Law Firm; Conour handled her matters; Devereux was an associate but not assigned to her file and performed no work on it.
- The Firm sent a letter (signed by Conour, Devereux, Hammond) announcing a new firm and inviting clients to contact any of the three attorneys.
- DiBenedetto received a $50,000 tortfeasor settlement in January 2011 (reserved UIM claim); in summer 2011 she and her father visited the firm to ask why the funds had not been disbursed.
- Devereux, after consulting the paralegal and case-management system, told her there were medical liens and a pending UIM claim and that typically liens/UIM had to be resolved before distribution; he advised her to ask Conour about disbursement.
- Conour later misappropriated both the tortfeasor and UIM settlement funds; Devereux resigned December 2011, reported concerns to disciplinary authorities and the FBI, and was not involved in settling the UIM claim.
- DiBenedetto sued Devereux for legal malpractice; the trial court granted summary judgment for Devereux and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Devereux breached duty to provide truthful, non-misleading information | DeBenedetto: Devereux told her there was no reason for concern and should have known Conour hadn’t promptly distributed funds, so he breached Rule 1.4/1.15 obligations | Devereux: He accurately reported firm records (liens + pending UIM), gave customary advice, and told her to consult Conour—no breach | Held: No breach as a matter of law—his statements were accurate and consistent with common practice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Devereux knew or should have known of Conour’s misappropriation such that he had a duty to warn or investigate further | DeBenedetto: He knew enough (funds in trust, bills < settlement) to suspect misappropriation and should have advised she could receive unencumbered funds | Devereux: He had no specific knowledge of theft—only concerns about business practices; Love controls | Held: No genuine issue that he knew of theft; designated evidence insufficient to impute knowledge |
| Causation — whether any alleged breach by Devereux proximately caused DiBenedetto’s losses | DeBenedetto: Failure to advise her of right to immediate funds or to investigate proximately caused loss | Devereux: He neither controlled funds nor settled the UIM claim; proximate cause lacking | Held: Court resolved earlier element (no breach); proximate cause not established as matter of law given undisputed facts |
| Request for appellate attorney fees (frivolous appeal) | DeBenedetto: Appeal challenges summary judgment; not frivolous given factual differences from Love | Devereux: Appeal re-litigates an issue decided in Love; fees warranted | Held: Denied—appeal not frivolous; factual differences made Love not entirely dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (definition of material fact and genuine issue)
- Van Kirk v. Miller, 869 N.E.2d 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (elements of legal malpractice)
- Clary v. Lite Machines Corp., 850 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (summary judgment when undisputed facts negate an element)
- Love (Devereux) v. Love, 30 N.E.3d 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (prior decision addressing whether Devereux knew of Conour’s thefts)
- Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2000) (importance of adequate communication and integrity in attorney-client relations)
- Oxley v. Lenn, 819 N.E.2d 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (breach is generally a jury question but can be decided as a matter of law when only one inference is possible)
- In re Estate of Lee, 954 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (attorney duty to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge)
- Matter of Helmer, 634 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. 1994) (Rule 1.15 violation for delayed distribution of client funds)