Ted Spice Et Ano V Carolyn Lake Et Ano

Key Facts

Deceased Name

Issues

• Spice argues he submitted sufficient evidence of legal malpractice to survive summary judgment, contending there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Lake breached her duty of care and caused him damage.
• Spice appeals the trial court's award of discovery sanctions, arguing the court abused its discretion in including fees incurred during litigation in a different jurisdiction.

Date of Death

Holdings

• The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Spice's legal malpractice claim, concluding that he failed to establish proximate causation between Lake's alleged negligence and his damages. Specifically, the court found that Spice's loss of property ownership resulted from a bankruptcy court-ordered sale, not Lake's actions, and that his claims for lost profits and attorney fees were speculative or unsupported by admissible evidence.
• The court upheld the trial court's award of discovery sanctions under CR 37 against Spice, determining that the fees incurred by Lake to prepare a motion to compel were reasonable and not waived by the stipulated dismissal of the case in Pierce County. The sanctions included $13,085.98 in fees, with $2,022 paid by Spice.

Remedies

• The trial court awarded discovery sanctions against Spice for his failure to comply with discovery requests, requiring him to pay a portion of the defendants' reasonable fees and expenses incurred in the motion to compel. The court found his failure to provide requested discovery was mostly unjustified.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, dismissing the legal malpractice claims against Carolyn Lake and Goodstein Law Group. This means the plaintiffs' claims were not upheld, and no further proceedings on those claims will occur.

Probate Status

Legal Principles

• Under the ABC Rule, attorney fees are compensable as consequential damages only if (1) the attorney's malpractice caused litigation with a third party, and (2) the third party was not connected to the initial malpractice. The court found Spice failed to prove Lake's actions were the sole cause of litigation with the City and DuBois.
• Spice's lost profits claim failed because supporting documents (profitability analysis, forensic accounting reports) were inadmissible hearsay under ER 801-802. The court could not consider unauthenticated documents without declarations from their authors.
• The court evaluated whether Lake's decisions were within the range of reasonable alternatives for a competent attorney. The attorney judgment rule protects attorneys from liability for honest, good faith decisions within professional standards unless the client can prove the decision fell below the duty of care.
• The trial court voided prior rulings in LUPA II due to Mathews' death, but the appeals court affirmed the dismissal, noting changes in city code rendered the case moot. Res judicata principles were applied to prior judgments after determining Mathews' estate was a necessary party.

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis
• Eriks v. Denver
• Stanzel v. City of Puyallup
• Spice v. Pierce County
• Spice v. Dubois
• LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC

Executor Name

Cited Statute

• United States Bankruptcy Code
• Washington Civil Rules
• Washington Evidence Rules
• Revised Code of Washington
• Land Use Petition Act

Executor Appointment

Judge Name

• Dwyer
• Bunn
• Andrus

Passage Text

• We agree with Spice that Aramburu's declaration establishes a question of fact as to whether Lake breached the standard of care in her representation of Spice. While Lake did testify regarding the strategy and judgment underpinning her actions, Aramburu's declaration raises the question of whether these actions were within the range of reasonable alternatives from the perspective of a reasonable, careful, and prudent attorney in Washington.
• The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that fees incurred while the case was pending in Pierce County Superior Court related to the same discovery dispute were 'reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order' compelling discovery in King County Under CR 37(a)(4) and determining that Lake did not waive her right to seek these fees when she stipulated to transferring the case from Pierce County to King County Superior Court.
• Spice failed to create an issue of fact that Lake caused this claimed damage. There is simply no evidence in the record to suggest that DuBois would have allowed Spice to develop the Property, would not have become embroiled in litigation with Spice, would not have filed for bankruptcy, and would not have been forced to sell the Property to pay her debts, had Lake been successful in obtaining a water availability letter from the City in 2009.