Schibel v. Eymann
93214-0
| Wash. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- James and Patti Schibel sued their landlord (2007). Their original counsel withdrew (2009); Eymann and Withey then represented them on a contingent fee basis.
- Trial was repeatedly continued and set for November 1, 2010. On October 10, 2010, Eymann and Withey moved to withdraw; the Schibels objected and said they could not find replacement counsel.
- Judge Plese held a hearing (Oct. 27, 2010), granted the attorneys’ motion to withdraw under CR 71(c)(4) citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the attorneys’ "ethical obligations," and denied a continuance; the Schibels’ case was later dismissed with prejudice.
- The Schibels appealed the withdrawal/order; the Court of Appeals affirmed and higher review was denied (state and U.S. Supreme Court).
- The Schibels later sued the attorneys for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging improper withdrawal and other failures (e.g., inadequate trial preparation, mishandling settlement).
- The attorneys moved for summary judgment invoking collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) as to any malpractice claim premised on the withdrawal; the trial court and Court of Appeals denied/affirmed denial, and the Washington Supreme Court reversed as to withdrawal-based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial-court order authorizing an attorney's withdrawal precludes relitigation of the propriety of that withdrawal in a subsequent malpractice suit | Schibel: withdrawal could have been improper/misrepresented and thus supports malpractice claims | Attorneys: court-ordered withdrawal was adjudicated; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of withdrawal | Yes — Court holds collateral estoppel bars malpractice claims that seek to relitigate the propriety of a court-approved withdrawal |
| Whether collateral estoppel elements are satisfied (identity of issue; final judgment; same parties/privity; injustice) | Schibel: the withdrawal hearing did not resolve malpractice-standard issues; hearing limited opportunity and different legal standards apply | Attorneys: identity satisfied because propriety of withdrawal was litigated and appealed; Schibels had full and fair opportunity | Court: second and third elements satisfied; first and fourth satisfied because withdrawal decision became a court decision and Schibels had full appellate review; preclusion applies to withdrawal-based claims |
| Whether malpractice claims unrelated to withdrawal remain viable | Schibel: malpractice claims about preparation, settlement handling, causation are distinct and not precluded | Attorneys: only withdraw-based claims barred, separate claims survive | Held: Non-withdrawal malpractice claims (e.g., failure to prepare) are not precluded and may proceed |
| Policy question: whether giving preclusive effect to court-approved withdrawals unfairly insulates attorneys who may have acted improperly | Schibel: rule risks shielding wrongful conduct and leaves malpractice plaintiffs unable to prove breach/cause | Attorneys: necessary to preserve the effectiveness of CR 71 and encourage attorneys to seek court approval rather than abandon clients | Court: favors finality, judicial immunity principles, and public policy encouraging compliance with withdrawal procedure; preclusion justified as to withdrawal issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 (Wash. 2004) (summary judgment and collateral estoppel standards)
- Reninger v. Dep't of Corr., 134 Wn.2d 437 (Wash. 1998) (collateral estoppel promotes finality and prevents relitigation)
- Shoemaker v. City of Bremerton, 109 Wn.2d 504 (Wash. 1987) (preclusion limited to issues actually litigated and necessary)
- Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518 (Wash. 1999) (court order can be superseding cause breaking causal chain for negligence)
- Adkins v. Clark County, 105 Wn.2d 675 (Wash. 1986) (principles underlying judicial immunity)
- Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 (Wash. 1992) (policy reasons for judicial immunity and protecting judicial independence)
- Bright v. Zega, 186 S.W.3d 201 (Ark. 2004) (court-approved withdrawal bars separate malpractice suit based on same withdrawal)