Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Anthony Stevison was allegedly wrongfully arrested by a Lake Charles police officer on January 12, 2003, and engaged attorney Charles St. Dizier for representation. St. Dizier filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff on January 12, 2004, but failed to request service of process within the required 90-day time limit. After Plaintiff terminated St. Dizier and retained Harry K. Burdette, defendants filed a Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency of Service of Process and Motion to Dismiss on October 31, 2005. Burdette read this exception before November 30, 2005, and Plaintiff filed a legal malpractice suit against St. Dizier on November 30, 2006. The trial court granted St. Dizier's exception of prescription, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment, applying the doctrine that an attorney's knowledge is imputed to their client.
Transaction Type
Legal malpractice claim - attorney failure to timely serve process
Issues
- The court considered whether St. Dizier was entitled to attorney fees for a frivolous appeal under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164. The standard requires showing no serious legal question, appeal taken solely for delay, or counsel not seriously believing the position. The court found the appeal did not meet frivolous appeal requirements and declined to award attorney fees, noting Stevison's potential malpractice claim against Burdette.
- The court addressed whether Anthony Stevison's November 30, 2006 filing of his legal malpractice claim against Charles St. Dizier was timely. The issue centered on when the one-year prescriptive period began - from the date of the alleged act (October 31, 2005 when the Declinatory Exception was filed), from actual discovery (December 9, 2005 when Plaintiff became personally aware), or from imputed knowledge (the court applied Louisiana law that an attorney's knowledge is imputed to the client, meaning Burdette's reading of the exception on November 30, 2005 started the prescriptive period). The court concluded the suit was not timely filed.
Holdings
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting defendant Charles St. Dizier's exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiff Anthony Stevison's legal malpractice suit. The court held that the statute of limitations had expired because plaintiff's attorney's knowledge of the potential malpractice was imputed to the plaintiff when the attorney read the exception filed on October 31, 2005. The suit filed on November 30, 2006 was not timely given this imputed knowledge under Louisiana jurisprudence.
Remedies
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting defendant Charles St. Dizier's exception of prescription and dismissing Plaintiff's legal malpractice suit. Costs of the appeal were assessed to appellant Anthony Stevison. The court declined to award attorney fees for a frivolous appeal claim, noting the substandard performance of St. Dizier in representing the plaintiff.
Legal Principles
The court applied Louisiana legal malpractice prescription rules under La.R.S. 9:5605, holding that the knowledge of an attorney is imputed to the client. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of the defendant's exception of prescription because the plaintiff's attorney became aware of the potential malpractice on October 31, 2005 when he read the Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency of Service of Process, making the November 30, 2006 malpractice suit untimely despite the plaintiff not personally discovering it until December 9, 2005.
Precedent Name
- Andre v. Golden
- Wilco March Buggies & Draglines v. XYZ Ins. Co.
- Orgeron v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
- Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Levey
Cited Statute
- Louisiana Revised Statutes
- Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
- Sylvia R. Cooks
- John D. Saunders
- Jimmie C. Peters
Passage Text
- A straightforward reading of the statute clearly shows it sets forth two peremptive limits within which to bring a legal malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect or one year from the date of discovery, but not more than three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.
- The jurisprudence has consistently held that "the knowledge of an attorney, actual or otherwise, is imputed to his or her client." Andre v. Golden, 99-689, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/21/99), 750 So.2d 1101, 1104, writ denied, 00-174 (La.3/17/00), 757 So.2d 643.
- Clearly, Burdette was alerted to St. Dizier's potential malpractice when he read the Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency of Service of Process and Motion to Dismiss filed on October 31, 2005. Therefore, the suit filed on November 30, 2006, was not timely given the imputation of Burdette's knowledge to Plaintiff.
Damages / Relief Type
Legal malpractice claim seeking compensatory damages for attorney's failure to timely serve process