Professional Negligence Law Reporter

An Indiana appellate court held that a law firm was not liable for allowing a prospective client to meet with a member of the firm, whom it later learned was not licensed to practice law.

Trina Spainhower contacted Smart & Kessler law firm, seeking legal representation. The firm’s receptionist allegedly told Spainhower that a staff attorney, Matthew Boehning, could meet with her for a consultation. Spainhower paid a $100 consultation fee and met with Boehning. She later executed an agreement for legal services with the firm. A year later, Spainhower dismissed the firm and subsequently learned that Boehning was not licensed to practice law. She filed grievances with the state high court’s disciplinary commission, which were dismissed. She then filed a notice of claim with the small claims court, alleging fraud and seeking a return of her $100 consultation fee plus treble damages and costs. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim was for legal malpractice, which was barred by the applicable two-year limitations period.

Affirming on different grounds, the appellate court found that the plaintiff’s claim was for harm occurring before the initial consultation, not from any deficiencies in the so-called legal services provided by Boehning. The court said that the plaintiff’s claim sounded in fraud, specifically, fraud in the inducement in that she was induced to pay $100 to meet with an attorney when in fact, the person she met with was not an attorney. Such a claim carries a six-year limitations period, the court found, concluding that the plaintiff’s claim was therefore not time-barred.

The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff’s fraud claim could not go forward based on her failure to prove that the misrepresentation regarding Boehning was made with the firm’s knowledge, with a reckless disregard as to its truth, or with an intent to deceive. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proof, and the trial court’s judgment was therefore proper.

Citation: Spainhower v. Smart & Kessler, 2021 WL 3730478 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2021).