Professional Negligence Law Reporter

Law

You must be a Professional Negligence Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of AAJ's Professional Negligence Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Professional Negligence Section

Wyoming high court rejects application of exoneration rule to negligence suits against former criminal defense attorneys

March/April 2021

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that a client’s exoneration in an underlying criminal proceeding is not a prerequisite to a legal negligence lawsuit against a former criminal defense attorney.

Chad Dockter, who was convicted of kidnapping and other crimes, sued the Wyoming Office of the State Public Defender and several public defenders, alleging malpractice, conspiracy to abandon, and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the exoneration rule required the plaintiff to receive post-conviction relief before suing for malpractice. The trial court dismissed and held that the exoneration rule rendered the lawsuit premature.

Reversing, the state high court noted that under the exoneration rule, a criminal defense attorney may not be sued for legal malpractice in a case in which the client was convicted absent the client’s exoneration by direct appeal or where the client received postconviction relief. Declining to adopt the rule, the court found the policy justifications for it unpersuasive. The court reasoned that allowing a criminal defendant the opportunity to prevail in a malpractice action does not allow a guilty person to profit from criminal behavior, but instead offers an aggrieved plaintiff the opportunity to be compensated for time spent in prison or the burden of a criminal record.

The court also said that applying the exoneration rule here would conflict with the state’s limitations jurisprudence. Requiring criminal defense attorneys to defend against decades-old claims runs counter to the policy goals that limitations statutes are designed to prevent, the court reasoned. Moreover, the court found, courts may stay proceedings and invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preserve judicial economy in cases where it is necessary to do so.

Consequently, the court remanded the case, holding that the trial court had erred when it dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Citation: Dockter v. Lozano, 472 P.3d 362 (Wyo. 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: Chad Dockter, pro se.