Shane Beal and The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Edwin Blinn, Jr.
9 N.E.3d 694
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Beal represented Blinn in a federal criminal investigation involving drug and money laundering; Blinn entered a proffer agreement with the government; Beal did not inform Blinn of FBI follow-up interview requests until after visits by agents; Blinn was indicted and later pleaded guilty to a felony as part of a plea deal; Blinn sued Beal for legal malpractice; the trial court denied Beal’s summary judgment motion and Beal’s motion to strike expert testimony; the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment.
- The proffer agreement contemplated multiple interviews; Beal’s actions allegedly caused Blinn to incur a harsher sentence; Blinn relied on Beal’s advice on cooperation and interviews; the district court admitted Blinn’s proffer statements; Blinn sought damages for Beal’s alleged negligence impacting sentencing.
- Beal argued Indiana public policy bars claims that rely on a criminal act or conviction and that Blinn cannot profit from criminal conduct through a malpractice claim.
- Blinn contends Beal’s failure to communicate requests for interviews caused harm; Beal argues public policy bars the claim because Blinn’s crime and sentence are dispositive.
- The court held Beal’s summary judgment was properly denied; there is a genuine issue of material fact about Beal’s conduct affecting Blinn’s sentence.
- The decision also notes that criminal defendants may bring legal malpractice claims; proximate cause must be shown though and summary judgment requires weighing designated evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion striking expert evidence | Blinn | Beal | No abuse; court properly admitted expert testimony |
| Whether genuine issue of material fact exists on Beal’s conduct affecting Blinn’s sentence | Blinn | Beal | Yes, genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimert v. Mortell, 680 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (public policy against recovering damages for one’s own crime; distinction from this case found)
- Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (criminal defendant may pursue legal malpractice claim against attorney)
- Silvers v. Brodeur, 682 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (prohibition on certain recoveries related to criminal acts; supports malpractice viability for criminal defendants)
- Sleweon v. Burke, Murphy, Constanza & Cuppy, 712 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (elements of a legal malpractice claim; causation and damages)
- Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 696 N.E.2d 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (evidence standards for expert testimony and reliability)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Estate of Wagers, 833 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (gatekeeping and admissibility of expert testimony)
- Stevens v. Bispham, 851 P.2d 556 (Ore. 1993) (commentary on how attorney negligence relates to punishment in criminal context)