Roberts v. Lanier

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed summary judgments entered for attorneys and law firms in Barbara Roberts's claims arising from her criminal-defense representation. The court addressed application of the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, including its definition of a legal-service provider and statute of limitations, as well as claims concerning a nonrefundable retainer, alleged misrepresentations, conversion, and unauthorized practice of law. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The Alabama Legal Services Liability Act governs Roberts's claims against Lanier and Steve Lanier, P.C., because Lanier performed legal services in Alabama in conjunction with Stallings, an Alabama-licensed legal-service provider.
2. The circuit court properly resolved the declaratory request concerning the nonrefundable-retainer language and the alleged unauthorized practice of law in favor of the Lanier defendants.
3. Summary judgment was improper on claims that Lanier misrepresented the validity of the contract, misrepresented that Roberts could not obtain a refund, and converted her funds.
4. Roberts was not required to present expert testimony to support her claims that Lanier misrepresented the enforceability of the nonrefundable retainer, misrepresented that no refund was available, and retained funds allegedly belonging to her.
5. The alleged outcome of Roberts's underlying criminal case was irrelevant to the fee-related claims, and Roberts's affidavit created a fact issue regarding injury caused by Lanier's alleged misconduct.
6. Stallings's and Coggin's summary-judgment motions were insufficient under Rule 56(c) because they contained no narrative statement of undisputed material facts and did not address Roberts's claims against them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act governed Roberts's claims against Lanier and Steve Lanier, P.C., even though Lanier was not licensed in Alabama when the contract was executed.
2. Whether the statute of limitations barred Roberts's declaratory and legal-malpractice claims concerning Lanier's alleged unauthorized practice of law and representation that he was qualified to practice in Alabama.
3. Whether fact issues existed concerning the timeliness of Roberts's claims that Lanier misrepresented the enforceability of the contract and the nonrefundability of the retainer and converted her funds.
4. Whether Roberts was required to present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care for those remaining legal-malpractice claims.
5. Whether Stallings's and Coggin's summary-judgment motions complied with Rule 56(c), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded