NJ: No Legal Malpractice Cause of Action for Violation of an R.P.C.
Baxt v. Liloia, 155 N.J.190 (1998)
Student Contributor: Ryan O’Donnell
NJ Underlying Commercial Action
Facts: Plaintiffs, who were previously defendants in a foreclosure action, filed a complaint against the attorneys who represented the mortgage bank. Plaintiffs sought damages for a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct, alleging that the bank’s attorneys actively mislead plaintiffs during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings.
Issue: Can a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct alone serve as the basis for a cause of action in legal malpractice?
Ruling: No.
Violation of a Rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached…Consonant with the intent of the ABA, no New Jersey case has allowed a cause of action based solely on a violation of the RPCs….Moreover, our research has found no case in any other jurisdiction permitting the RPCs to be used in this manner…[S]tate disciplinary codes are not designed to establish standards for civil liability but, rather, to provide standards of professional conduct by which lawyers may be disciplined…[Various rules] are framed as precatory guidelines…Many of the disciplinary rules are aspirational in nature and therefore, particularly unsuitable for use outside of the disciplinary system.
* * *
While violations of ethical standards do not per se give rise to tortious claims, the standards set the minimum level of competency which must be displayed by all attorneys. Where an attorney fails to meet the minimum standard of competence governing the profession, such failure can be considered evidence of malpractice.
Lesson: A cause of action for legal malpractice cannot be premised solely on an attorney’s alleged breach of a Rule of Professional Conduct. But violation of an RPC can nonetheless be some evidence of a departure from the applicable standard of care.
The MRPC are standards used for lawyers to regulate themselves within the legal community. They carry with them there own punishments and sanctions. So, people should not be able to rely on these laws to form a basis for malpractice. Plus, just because someone is unethical, does not necessarily mean they committed malpractice. A lawyer can lie to the court, but it could ultimately help his client. Thus, it's ethically wrong, but it might not rise to the level of malpractice if the client suffered no harm.
I agree with Ms. Goldberg. A violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should not carry benefits for a client. In contrast, "State disciplinary codes are not designed to establish standards for civil liability but, rather, to provide standards of professional conduct by which lawyers may be disciplined." These rules were intended to be guidelines for attorneys, not a standard by which a legal malpractice action may be brought. That being said, I do believe that such a violation may be used as evidence in a legal malpractice action, but may not be used as a basis for a legal malpractice action.
Playing devils advocate, I do believe that in certain extreme situations, a violation of the rules should be sufficient to form a basis of a legal malpractice action. A lawyer has a number of responsibilities. A lawyer is a representative of their client, an officer of the court, as well as a day to day citizen. An attorney is required to abide by all three of these duties at all times, not one at a time. Since an attorney's duties to serve the client, as an officer of the court, and a public citizen are all in the same, a violation of the rules may be interpreted to mean a violation to the particular client. If this is the case, a client should be able to bring an action for violation of such rules.
I agree with Melissa. A violation of the MRPC does not necessarily mean that a client has suffered damages. While the purpose of the MRPC is to punish lawyers for violations of ethical duties, the purpose of malpractice is to compensate the client. The main difference is damages. A violation of an ethical duty may not give rise to damages upon which a client could claim malpractice.
I agree with the rule that a violation of the RPC cannot serve as a basis for a legal malpractice action for the reasons stated in the case and by Ms. Goldberg. I also think that Mr. O'Donnell highlighted an important point when he stated "but a violation an RPC can nonetheless be some evidence of a departure from the applicable standard of care." The Baxt case is not setting a bright-line rule that a violation of the RPC can never be considered in a legal malpractice action. The rules provide for a minimum standard that must be met. Therefore, a client may suffer harm as the result of their attorney's failure to meet that minimum standard of care.
I agree with Melissa that an ethical breach does not necessarily mean that the lawyer committed malpractice. If the client is not damaged then there should be no malpractice claim. If courts start using an ethical breach to automatically assume malpractice than the amount of malpractice claims would skyrocket and tie down the courts. Furthermore, sometimes ethical breaches are too borderline to be able to fairly punish the lawyer twice. On the other hand, lawyers might be more careful with their actions if there was a risk of malpractice every time they make an ethical breach.
I agree with Melissa that an ethical breach does not necessarily mean that the lawyer committed malpractice. If the client is not damaged then there should be no malpractice claim. If courts start using an ethical breach to automatically assume malpractice than the amount of malpractice claims would skyrocket and tie down the courts. Furthermore, sometimes ethical breaches are too borderline to be able to fairly punish the lawyer twice. On the other hand, lawyers might be more careful with their actions if there was a risk of malpractice every time they make an ethical breach.
In this situation, as with many situations in the law, I do not think that a bright line rule would serve to promote justice. In contrast, I do think that this needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine whether the ethical breach has amounted to a legal malpractice action. I think the threat of this possibly being a legal malpractice action would serve Mr. Aronson's point that lawyers would be more careful in their actions. Sometimes the threat of discipline or punishment is enough of a deterrent.