Willey v. Bugden
318 P.3d 757
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Willey, an elementary school teacher, was tried twice on charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a child; first trial hung, second trial resulted in seven convictions affirmed on appeal.
- Defense counsel pursued a memory-confabulation strategy and consulted a memory expert before trial but chose not to call an expert at trial because corroborating evidence (witnesses, administrator notes) could compel testimony undermining the defense or open the door to adverse evidence.
- Between trials the State offered Willey misdemeanor Alford pleas to two counts; counsel says they informed Willey by phone and sent a detailed FedEx letter analyzing the offer and evidence; Willey denies receiving the letter and says he was not adequately advised.
- Willey sued his former attorneys for legal malpractice alleging (1) negligent failure to call a memory expert at trial, and (2) failure to communicate plea offers. The attorneys moved for summary judgment asserting collateral estoppel and lack of causation.
- The district court granted summary judgment on both claims. On appeal the court affirmed summary judgment as to the memory-expert malpractice claims (Willey inadequately briefed his challenge to issue-preclusion) but reversed as to the failure-to-communicate claim, finding genuine factual disputes about whether Willey received or adequately considered the plea offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willey can pursue malpractice claims based on counsel not calling a memory expert (issue preclusion) | Willey: ineffective-assistance loss in criminal case shouldn't preclude civil malpractice; standards differ | Attorneys: prior ineffective-assistance adjudication bars relitigation; standards are effectively equivalent | Affirmed for Willey’s inadequate briefing; court declined to resolve novel question and upheld summary judgment on issue-preclusion grounds |
| Whether counsel failed to communicate and advise regarding the misdemeanor Alford plea offer | Willey: counsel did not give him the letter or meaningful advice about plea or changed evidence; would have considered plea if properly informed | Attorneys: they informed Willey by phone, mailed a detailed FedEx letter, and Willey admitted recalling plea offers and rejecting them as innocent | Reversed summary judgment on this claim; factual disputes (sworn affidavits) preclude summary judgment and require trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standards for ineffective-assistance claims)
- McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (prior unsuccessful ineffective-assistance claim can preclude malpractice suit)
- Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1989) (collateral estoppel applies after loss of ineffective-assistance claim)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (counsel has duty to communicate plea offers)
- Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (elements of issue preclusion under Utah law)