"Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned"
Who would have thought that a legal malpractice case could revolve around William Congreve's famous quote, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned" ( from The Mourning Bride) - Wildey v. Paulsen is such a case. Not only is the Illinois Appellate Decision an interesting read, but it highlights several important legal malpractice issues all lawyers should be aware of.
The plaintiff in the case, Sharon Wildey, herself an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois, decided to sue who former fiance, Richard Springs for breaking off their engagement, claiming he violated the Illinois Breach of Promises Act. The jilted bride discussed the possible suit and sought advice and counsel from her personal friend, Mary Paulsen, the now defendant in the legal malpractice case. Before Wildey and Paulsen agreed on a retention agreement or Paulsen did any work on the matter, Wildey drafted and sent a letter to Springs (pursuant to the Breach of Promises Act) putting him on notice of her intent to file a lawsuit against him - Wildey, don't forget is an attorney herself. Both Wildey and Paulsen admit that this notice, however, didn't include the date that the parties became engaged which is required by the Act. The parties disagree about if Paulsen told Wildey that the notice was faulty - but the fact remains that neither of them corrected the notice error. After the notice was sent and they agreed on a retention agreement, Paulsen billed Wildey 1 1/2 hours working on the complaint to be filed against the ex-fiance, however, Wildey never paid Paulsen a penny for her representation. Wildey then filed the complaint against Springs in the circuit court and listed Paulsen as her attorney of record.
Because Springs lived in a different state, the case was subsequently removed to federal court where a jury trial took place. Paulsen did not represent Wildey in federal court. Paulsen received a verdict in her favor and was awarded $118,000 in federal court, however after Springs appealed, the Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict finding that Wildey did not comply with the mandatory notice requirement of the Act.
Wildey then filed a legal malpractice action in state court against her friend and former lawyer, Paulsen. In the legal mal complaint not only did Wildey seek the award she lost in federal court, but she also sought damages for pain and suffering. However, the trial court found that the Act only allowed recovery for actual damages so the only damages Wildey proved in the legal malpractice action were $100 for wedding dress alterations. Since the Court found that there was a attorney client relationship that was breached by Paulsen when she did not correct the notice mistake made by Wildey - Wildey was awarded $100 in damages. The appellate court upheld this decision and highlighted some important legal malpractice issues:
1) If Paulsen was doing a favor for her friend by agreeing to be listed as counsel to appear "serious" to Springs and Paulsen's duties were simply ministerial - the retainer agreement should have reflected this limitation of representation. Instead the retainer simply established an attorney-client relationship with no limitation. If you are doing a friend a favor and your legal representation is limited make sure you always spell those limitations out in writing;
2) Pain and suffering is not awarded in legal malpractice actions when the case-within-a-case cannot recoup pain and suffering damages (in this case the Act prohibited pain and suffering damages). A client may feel their attorneys negligence caused the great pain and suffering, but the client is only entitled to be made whole from the negligemce and can only recover what was lost in the case-within-a-case;
3) Even if an attorney does not receive payment from a client (i.e. you do work for a family member as a favor and don't charge for the legal work) this does not change the existence of an attorney-client relationship that can result in a legal malpractice action if negligence occurs; and,
4) Wildey cannot use the federal lawsuit's verdict to show the damages from the case-within-a-case ($118,000 verdict) because no valid judgment remains in the federal lawsuit filed against Springs. "Once a judgment is reversed on appeal, it no longer exists." (see the Opinion at p. 14).