Summary
The Florida Supreme Court approves the result in Rowe v. Schreiber and holds that a convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or post-conviction relief before maintaining a legal malpractice action arising from the underlying criminal case. The court declines to extend judicial immunity to public defenders and adopts the requirement that the plaintiff prove actual innocence as part of causation in a criminal legal malpractice claim. Justice Shaw concurs in part and dissents in part, arguing that public defenders should receive quasi-judicial immunity.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or post-conviction relief before maintaining a legal-malpractice action arising from the underlying criminal proceeding.
- When the statute of limitations begins to run on a criminal legal-malpractice claim.
- Whether public defenders are entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity for their official actions.
- Whether a plaintiff pursuing legal malpractice arising from a criminal case must prove actual innocence of the underlying criminal charges as part of causation.
Holdings
- A convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or post-conviction relief as a precondition to maintaining a legal-malpractice action arising from the criminal representation.
- The statute of limitations for a criminal legal-malpractice action does not commence until the criminal defendant has obtained final appellate or post-conviction relief.
- Public defenders in Florida are not entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity for their official actions.
- A plaintiff asserting legal malpractice arising from a criminal proceeding must prove, as part of the causation element, by the greater weight of the evidence that he or she was innocent of the crimes charged in the underlying proceeding.
Key quotations
“We further held that the statute of limitations in a malpractice action does not commence until the criminal defendant has obtained final appellate or postconviction relief.” (398)
“Thus, we decline to extend judicial immunity to public defenders in this state.” (399)
“We agree with the reasoning of the district court on this issue and adopt the reasoning as our own.” (400)
Factual background
Rowe was convicted in 1984 and received four life sentences. His conviction was affirmed, but he later obtained post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and the charges were nolle prossed. He subsequently brought legal-malpractice claims alleging negligent representation in the original trial and direct appeal, including failure to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Procedural history
Rowe was convicted of capital sexual battery and sentenced to four life terms. After the conviction was affirmed, the trial court initially denied his Rule 3.850 motion without a hearing; the district court reversed for an evidentiary hearing, after which the trial court granted post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial. The State nolle prossed the charges. Rowe then sued attorneys involved in his trial, post-conviction proceedings, and direct appeal for legal malpractice. The trial court dismissed claims against Schreiber and Jorandby as barred by the two-year statute of limitations; the district court reversed, and the Supreme Court approved the result while disapproving Martin.