Brickley v. Reed, 2023 WL 2376127; Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, September 2023
What claims are “legal malpractice” claims?
James Allen Brickley was unhappy with the representation that Attorney Justin Elliot Reed provided him and decided to sue him for legal malpractice. Reed represented Brickley in a criminal matter for which Brickley received a sentence of 35 years confinement in Texas Department of Corrections. In his complaint naming Reed as Defendant, Brickley alleged counts of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).
In the trial court, Reed moved for dismissal for lack of basis in law, arguing that all of Brickley’s causes of action are in reality legal-malpractice claims under the “anti-fracturing rule” and the following Peeler doctrine. The trial court agreed with Reed and dismissed Brickley’s cause of action. Brickley brings this appeal.
What is the “anti-fracturing rule”?
Claims which, at their essence, attack an attorney’s care, skill, or diligence in representing a client are claims of legal malpractice. The anti-fracturing rule prevents plaintiffs from splitting, or ‘fracturing’, claims into separate claims under non-negligence theories like fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, or violations of the DTPA.
The anti-fracturing rule does not prevent plaintiffs from alleging professional negligence and non-negligence claims against an attorney because both claims include some overlapping fact, but the claimant must do more than reassert the exact same facts for multiple claims against the attorney. Texas Courts are not required to take the identification of claims by plaintiffs as fact, they are encouraged to do their own analysis.
In analyzing Brickley’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty — he alleged the exact same facts as relevant to his legal malpractice claim; there was no allegation of how Reed received an improper benefit based on his alleged acts and omissions. Therefore, the court found that this claim was in essence an improperly fractured legal-malpractice claim.
The same was found true for Brickley’s other claims. The ‘breach of contract’ claim only included allegations of improper legal representation or alleged bad legal advice. The DTPA claim only alleges acts and omissions which concern Reed’s preparation for, and conduct of, Brickley’s criminal proceeding. These were all improperly fractured legal malpractice claims.
What does the Peeler doctrine require?
The court narrowed down Brickley’s claim to its essence – a legal malpractice claim. Now the court applies the Peeler doctrine to determine if the causation element of the legal malpractice claim has been met.
The Peeler doctrine requires that criminal convicts may not sue their defense attorneys for legal malpractice unless they have been exonerated by direct appeal, post-conviction relief or otherwise. Peeler determined as a matter of law, that the convict’s illegal conduct was the proximate cause for the conviction, not the attorney’s negligence.
Texas Courts have not recognized an impossibility exception, for clients who do not have access to their entire criminal files, to Peeler; and have not excluded defendant’s who contested their guilt as opposed to pleading guilty.
Brickley lost all available appeals to overturn his conviction, therefore he was prevented from bringing a claim of legal malpractice against Reed. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss Brickley’s complaints in its entirety.
Texas criminal defendants be warned! Unless you are able to overturn your criminal conviction, don’t even consider suing your attorney for legal malpractice!
Legal Disclaimer: The information on this blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on current legal standards but does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified attorney.
The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not reflect those of any affiliated organizations or a single Katz Law Firm lawyer or agent. The accuracy and applicability of the information may vary. The blog owner and authors assume no liability for actions taken based on this content. Always seek professional legal counsel before making any legal decisions.
