Mathieu v. Jarvis

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court granted Paul Jarvis's motion to dismiss Kenneth Mathieu's claims arising from Jarvis's representation of Mathieu's son in a divorce proceeding. The court held that Jarvis owed Mathieu no attorney duty of care, Mathieu could not represent his son without being an attorney, and the action could not collaterally attack the divorce judgment or a separate repossession decision.

Holdings

1. An attorney owes a duty of care only to the client, not to a third party who claims to have been damaged by the attorney's representation. Because Jarvis represented Mathieu's son rather than Mathieu, Jarvis owed Mathieu no duty of care, and Mathieu's claim was subject to dismissal.
2. Mathieu could not represent his son because Vermont prohibits nonattorneys from practicing law.
3. The action could not be used to collaterally attack the divorce judgment or the credit union's repossession decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mathieu could maintain a claim against Jarvis based on Jarvis's representation of Mathieu's son in the divorce action.
2. Whether an attorney owes a duty of care to a nonclient third party who claims injury from the attorney's representation of the attorney's client.
3. Whether Mathieu could represent his son in the action despite being a nonattorney.
4. Whether Mathieu's action could collaterally attack the divorce judgment or the credit union's repossession decision.

Disposition

dismissed