Guilty Until Proven Innocent? The Suit Within a Suit Method in the Criminal Context
Daly v. Peace, 863 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 06955 (2 Dept.)
NY Underlying criminal action
Student Contributor: Angela Ignelzi
Facts: Plaintiff brought an action against his former defense attorney for legal malpractice after, allegedly, being wrongfully convicted. The attorney made a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the client could not prove he was innocent of the charges brought against him in the underlying action. The trial court granted the attorney’s complaint and plaintiff appealed the dismissal.
Issue: Did the trial court correctly dismiss plaintiff’s malpractice complaint because of his inability to prove his innocence with regard to the claims asserted against him in the underlying action?
Ruling: The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, held that:
(1) The trial court has correctly assessed that the plaintiff could not establish his innocence with regard to the charges made against him in the underlying action, and, therefore
(2) The Plaintiff had no cause of action for legal malpractice against his criminal defense attorney, unless and until he ultimately succeeded in his attempts to have the underlying conviction reversed.
Lesson: A former client, even in an underlying criminal action, can only prevail on a claim for legal malpractice by successfully applying the “suit within a suit” method: No presumption of innocence is available to those convicted in the first place, purportedly, as a result of negligent representation.
I strongly agree with this holding. Criminal defense clients are notoriously one of the most disgruntled groups of clients, and especially those that lose their cases, are prone to trying to bring legal malpractice suits against their former defense attorneys. Civil malpractice suits are the wrong platform to try to challenge an alleged wrongful conviction in a criminal case. The plaintiff needs to file an appeal in criminal court, and subsequently prevail, before suing his defense attorney for malpractice. To afford the plaintiff a presumption of innocence in a civil malpractice suit would be completely contradictory, as he was convicted in criminal court in the first place. Further, to proceed with this malpractice suit, the plaintiff would be forcing the civil court to hear evidence and make a determination as to his innocence as this is the underlying issue they would have to consider before reaching a determination as to a malpractice award. To have allowed this malpractice suit to go forward would create a precedence that would undoubtedly lead to a flood of similar malpractice actions. Opening the floodgate as to this type of litigation is not only detrimental to judicial economy, but also forces the civil court into an improper role.
I agree with the fact that in a civil trial there is not an automatic presumption of innocence, just because it is a civil trial. The reason there is such tight controls on a criminal trial is because of the strong possibility that someone may go to jail for crime they did not commit and a person's freedom in this country is value far more than cash. So, since in a civil trial, freedom is not at stake, it makes sense that there is no overwhelming presumption of innocence.
I agree with Ms. Laratro fully. I add only that this ruling also favors justice, because it prevents convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes by claiming malpractice. Criminal defendants should only be permitted to sue their attorneys if they were innocent of the crime they were convicted for.
I agree with this holding as well. My only draw back is what if you are guilty, but the attorney is still negligent.. For example in a death penalty case, say the defendant is guilty, but the attorney doesn't effectively represent him and bring up important mitigating factors which could have helped the defendant to get life in prison rather than death, wouldn't the defendant (or possibly his estate) have a claim even though he was still guilty? Maybe a constitutional claim because of the right to effective counsel? Please comment