Law

Professional Negligence Law Reporter

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

Parents' Negligence Action Against Attorney Handling Termination Proceeding May Go Forward

March/April 2019

E.P. v. Hogreve, 2018 WL 6715555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018).

A Florida appellate court held that a professional negligence action brought by adoptive parents against the attorney who worked on their adoption and a termination proceeding against the child’s biological father could go forward. Here, prospective adoptive parents retained an agency and its attorney Barton Hogreve to provide adoption services. After the child’s birth, the adoption process was interrupted when the biological father denied his consent for the adoption. Protracted litigation ensued, and the parents successfully adopted the child with the assistance of new counsel. They then filed suit against Hogreve, alleging professional negligence. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that there was a lack of privity between the plaintiffs and Hogreve.

Reversing, the appellate court found that clients may sue their former attorney for professional negligence where there is privity of contract or where the clients are the intended beneficiary of the lawyer’s services. Here, the court found that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts demonstrating they had a reasonable belief they had consulted with the defendant in order to obtain legal advice. For instance, the court found, the defendant referred to “our case” in communications with the plaintiffs and provided formal advice, opinions, and information about the status of the couple’s legal proceedings and strategy. The court also concluded the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged their status as third-party beneficiaries of the legal services agreement between the agency and the defendant.

Citing case law, the court found that the primary purpose of the defendant’s relationship with the agency was to secure placement of the child into the plaintiffs’ home, a direct benefit for the couple.

Thus, the court held that the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ professional negligence claim had been erroneous.

Plaintiff counsel: Brett Halsey and Aaron Blynn, both of Miami.