Legal Malpractice has become so complicated that
you need an expert to help figure it out.

Akin Gump v NDR – Practical Consequences of Allowing Attorneys' Fees as Damages

The Texas Supreme Court’s new opinion in Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development and Research Corporation holds that

a malpractice plaintiff may recover damages for attorney’s fees paid in the underlying case to the extent the fees were proximately caused by the defendant attorney’s negligence.

Prior to this holding, Texas courts had generally disfavored the recovery of attorneys’ fees qua damages unless allowed by statute or contract.

At first glance, the Akin Gump Court’s holding appears straightforward and logical, and in some cases will be easy to implement. For example, if a lawyer fails to file an answer, resulting in a default judgment, the plaintiff should be able to recover the fees it must pay a second attorney to have the default set aside. In this example, 100% of the extra fees are attributable to cleaning up the first lawyer’s mistake. Most cases, however, are not so cut and dried. 

I fear several unintended consequences from the Court’s ruling: 

  • First, will there be a new class of cases in which there are no damages but attorneys fees? For example, if a lawyer obtains a total victory for the client, will the client (perhaps hoping to bargain for a fee reduction) comb the record for inconsequential errors that nevertheless may have increased the total fee by some amount?
  • Second, will the new rule be used to avoid summary judgment in cases in which the undisputed facts prove the negligence caused no damages? Take appellate malpractice. If a trial court decides as a matter of law that the client would have lost the appeal regardless of the malpractice, will the client’s claim now survive based on a “fact issue” regarding increased appellate costs due to the negligence?
  • Third, how much will the rule expand the number and costs of mandatory expert witnesses? Expert testimony is needed to prove causation in all but the most obvious situations. Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2004).(PDF) Doesn’t this mean a new set of experts will be needed in every malpractice case in which the plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees as damages? The experts will need to review the record and opine whether the malpractice proximately caused an increase in attorneys’ fees and, if so, how much.

Question: Does Akin Gump open Pandora’s box or is it simply a logical extension of “but for” causation? Are there any special rules or limits that should apply?

Tagged with: , , , , ,

Posted in: Attorneys Fees, But for-Proximate Cause, Damages, Insight & commentary, Litigation, Texas