Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for attorney Allen Kirshenbaum in a legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty action brought by Artecia Behroozi. The court held that the malpractice and related fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care in the family-law malpractice context. The court also rejected Behroozi's arguments concerning venue and a discovery order requiring medical records.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Behroozi’s legal malpractice and related claims were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.
- Whether the discovery rule or continuing-representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations.
- Whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and breach in Behroozi’s legal malpractice claims.
- Whether the Superior Court improperly transferred venue when pretrial matters followed an assigned hearing justice to Washington County.
- Whether the appeal concerning production of medical records was moot.
Holdings
- Behroozi’s malpractice claims based on conduct occurring before April 13, 2009, were barred by Rhode Island’s three-year statute of limitations, leaving only the period from April 13, 2009, through June 23, 2009, potentially actionable.
- Because Behroozi’s fraud claim arose from her professional relationship with Kirshenbaum and alleged the same underlying representation, it was subject to the three-year limitations period applicable to malpractice actions and was time-barred.
- The discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations because Behroozi was aware of facts that would have placed a reasonable person on notice of a potential malpractice claim.
- The court declined to decide whether the continuing-representation doctrine applies because Rhode Island had not adopted the doctrine and Behroozi had not raised the argument in the Superior Court; the argument was therefore waived.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment in a legal-malpractice action generally must present expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, and the common-knowledge exception did not apply to Behroozi’s claims.
- The Superior Court did not transfer venue from Providence County to Washington County; pretrial matters merely followed the assigned hearing justice when she moved counties as part of her regular rotation.
- Behroozi’s challenge to the discovery order requiring production of medical records was moot because the hearing justice ultimately granted her motion for a protective order and Kirshenbaum never reviewed the records.
Key quotations
“Our function is to review ‘the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we will affirm the judgment if we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” (128 A.3d at 871)
“More significantly, Behroozi’s malpractice claims necessarily fail because she has not retained an expert witness to testify in support of her case.” (128 A.3d at 875)
Factual background
Kirshenbaum represented Behroozi in post-final-judgment divorce proceedings concerning arrearages in alimony owed by her former husband, beginning in November 2007. He withdrew with Family Court approval in June 2009. Behroozi filed suit on April 13, 2012, alleging malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, but she did not retain or intend to call an expert witness on the applicable legal standard of care.
Procedural history
Behroozi sued her former attorney in Superior Court for legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Kirshenbaum, concluding that the malpractice-related claims were barred by the statute of limitations and unsupported by expert testimony, and that the fraud claim independently failed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court summarily decided the appeal after a show-cause hearing and affirmed.