First Circuit: Emotional Distress Damages in Legal Malpractice

Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196 (1st Cir. September 9, 1987).

Facts:  After what appeared to be a series of misunderstandings between Wagenmann and his family members, Wagenmann was searched and arrested without a warrant, brought to a holding cell, and ultimately, involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital.  His court-appointed attorney, Healy, entered a general appearance on Wagenmann's behalf in connection with the commitment proceedings, bail and criminal charges.  

Allegedly, Healy never inquired as to what had happened, but did say that he was a friend and fellow parishioner of one of the individuals who had been responsible for reporting Healy to the police.  When Wagenmann asked Healy to withdraw and get him another lawyer, Healy apparently refused.  Healy also refused Wagenmann's requests to be brought before a judge.  

Instead, Healy proposed that Wagenmann immediately leave town or agree to be committed to a mental hospital. Wagenmann refused and a psychiatrist present at the time saw no grounds upon which Wagenmann could be admitted.  Healy then commented "maybe in New York you're something, but [in Massachusetts], you're nothing," and left.  

Wagenmann was later informed that he had in fact been committed to a mental hospital for a twenty day observation period.  After some time, Wagenmann was visited by a psychiatrist who saw no basis to justify his admission and arranged for his immediate release.

Wagenmann subsequently sued Healy for legal malpractice, requesting damages for emotional distress.  Wagenmann was awarded damages against Healy and Healy appealed.

Issue:  Is a Plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit entitled to damages for emotional distress? 

Ruling:  Yes, if it is foreseeable from the attorney-client relationship that a breach of the applicable standard of care will cause the client to suffer a loss of liberty or social stigma.

The Court noted that "an attorney who commits malpractice is liable to client for any reasonably foreseeable loss caused by his negligence."  If it were otherwise, especially in situations where the attorney-client relationship was based on something other than the client's economic concerns, the attorney would effectively be immunized from liability even though he exposed his client to a "parade of horribles."

Here, Wagenmann was entitled to damages for emotional distress -- He had been involuntarily confined to a mental hospital as a result of his attorney's negligence and alleged misconduct.  This, in turn, caused Wagenmann continuing anguish and fear that others, including prospective employers, would learn of it and question his sanity.  Consequently, the Court concluded: 

That Healy was guilty of malpractice in the defense of commitment proceedings, rather than in the prosecution of a civil claim for damages, is no reason artificially to shield him from the condign consequences of his carelessness. 

Lesson:  Emotional damages are recoverable in legal malpractice action where the client's damages include something other than a purely economic loss, i.e. incarceration, false imprisonment, or significant injury to reputation. 

Emotional Distress Damages: Tied to the Interest Protected by the Attorney-Client Relationship

Kohn v. Schiappa, 281 N.J. Super. 235 (1995)

NJ Underlying Adoption Action

Student Contributor: Daniel Schick

Facts: Plaintiffs retained counsel to assist them in adopting a child. Defendant's alleged malpractice arose from serving the adoption complaint on the birth parents, thereby erroneously disclosing to them privileged information, including the name and address of the adoptive parents and the adoptee. This breach of confidentiality allegedly caused the plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.

The defendant attorney moved for summary judgment urging that under New Jersey law, recovery for emotional distress is precluded in actions for legal malpractice. Plaintiffs, however, argued that they were entitled to damages for emotional distress, since the attorney-client relationship was never predicated upon the protection of any economic interest.

Issue: Are damages for emotional distress recoverable where an attorney is retained to pursue non-economic claims?

Ruling: Yes. Plaintiffs retained the defendant attorney to handle an adoption, not to seek recovery for an economic loss. If plaintiffs are precluded from asserting and proving the mental anguish and distress purportedly caused by counsel's wrongful disclosure of confidential information, then they are, for all intents and purposes, left without any remedy for counsel’s negligence. Accordingly, affording virtual immunity to negligent attorneys who are retained for non-economic purposes is contrary to the public interest.

Lesson: Damages for emotional distress will be allowed in an action for legal malpractice where the foundation of the attorney-client relationship is something other than the protection of the client’s economic interests.

"Loss of Liberty": Damages for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in Legal Malpractice

Lawson v. Nugent, 702 F. Supp. 91 (D.N.J. 1988)

NJ Underlying Criminal Action

Student Contributor: Colleen Gaedcke

Facts: The plaintiff retained the defendant attorney as defense counsel after being indicted for the robbery of a post office. Upon the advice of the defendant attorney, plaintiff pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. While in prison, the plaintiff retained new counsel and obtained a reduction in his sentence. Eventually, he was released after serving 5 years.
Upon release, plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against the defendant attorney alleging that, but for the defendant’s negligent legal representation, he would have served a maximum of only 40 months in prison. The plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress as a result of the anguish he suffered for the additional 20 months he spent in prison, allegedly, as a result of his attorney’s ineffective representation.

Issue: Can a criminal defendant recover damages for emotional distress in a legal malpractice action?

Ruling: Yes. The United States District Court, District of New Jersey, held that the plaintiff may pursue emotional distress damages if he could first establish (1) the existence of some egregious or extraordinary circumstance; and (2) the allegedly negligent attorney was retained to protect something other the plaintiff’s economic interests.

Lesson: Given that the attorney-client relationship in a criminal proceeding is predicated upon the protection of the client’s interest in his freedom and sovereignty, “an attorney who commits malpractice is liable to his client for any reasonably foreseeable loss caused by his negligence, including emotional distress resulting from [his] loss of liberty."