445 P.3d 521
Utah2019Background
- Matthew Thomas was convicted by a jury of two felony counts of aggravated sexual abuse on October 26, 2012; Lyle Hillyard was his trial attorney and Thomas alleges multiple trial errors by Hillyard.
- New counsel filed a motion to arrest judgment for ineffective assistance on January 7, 2013; the motion was granted and Thomas was granted a new trial on May 24, 2013.
- On October 24, 2014, Thomas entered a plea to three misdemeanors and was released; he received a more favorable outcome than the original felony convictions.
- Thomas sued Hillyard for legal malpractice on May 23, 2017, alleging breach of duty, causation, and damages stemming from the trial representation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hillyard, holding Thomas’s malpractice suit accrued at conviction (or, at latest, when he incurred fees for the January 2013 post-trial motion) and was therefore time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding accrual occurs when the underlying criminal case is final and no appeal of right remains, and that PCRA proceedings toll the malpractice limitations period while pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a criminal malpractice claim accrue? | Thomas: accrual occurs when he obtained a more favorable result (plea) or at least when granted a new trial. | Hillyard: accrual occurred at guilty verdict (or when post-trial motion fees were incurred). | Accrues when the underlying criminal action is final and no appeal of right remains (here, at plea ending the case). |
| Is a plaintiff required to obtain postconviction relief or prove actual innocence before suing for criminal malpractice? | Thomas: such a requirement is unnecessary; causation can be shown in other ways. | Hillyard: contends claim accrues earlier and relies on conviction to bar causation. | Court rejects imposing extra requirements (no per se rule requiring postconviction relief or proof of innocence). |
| How should conflicting precedent about accrual be resolved? | Thomas: follow cases requiring finality of underlying action. | Hillyard: relies on Jensen suggesting earlier accrual. | Court reaffirms Deloitte reasoning, overrules Jensen to the extent inconsistent, and adopts finality rule. |
| Does PCRA toll the malpractice statute of limitations? | Thomas: tolling should apply during PCRA pendency. | Hillyard: PCRA should not revive or extend expired malpractice claims. | Tolling applies while a timely-filed PCRA action is pending, but PCRA cannot revive already-expired malpractice claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 34 P.3d 209 (Utah 2001) (accrual occurs when underlying action is final and no appeal of right remains)
- Jensen v. Young, 245 P.3d 731 (Utah 2010) (previous accrual formulation; court overrules to extent inconsistent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel)
- Harline v. Barker, 912 P.2d 433 (Utah 1996) (proximate-cause/trial-within-a-trial framework for legal malpractice damages)
- Sevy v. Security Title Co. of Southern Utah, 902 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995) (a cause of action accrues when the last event necessary to complete the claim occurs)