State v. Therrien, 2003 VT 44

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment in a legal malpractice and indemnification claim arising from Act 250 and Consumer Fraud Act violations involving a residential subdivision's water and septic systems. The court held that the client's intentional misconduct barred recovery for liabilities not proximately caused by the attorneys, but did not automatically preclude claims concerning negligent drafting of deeds. The court affirmed summary judgment on most liability issues and reversed and remanded the deed-related issues for factual findings.

Holdings

1. A client's intentional wrongful conduct does not automatically shield an attorney from all liability for professional negligence. Liability depends on whether the attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of the claimed injury and, where relevant, on the relative culpability and conduct of both attorney and client.
2. Summary judgment for Howe was proper as to liabilities arising from Therrien's independent violations of the Act 250 permit, including the water and septic-system compliance obligations and the State's enforcement costs and attorney's fees.
3. Summary judgment was improper on the claims arising from the failure to prepare deeds containing rights and obligations necessary for sewer-system and permit compliance. The claims had to be remanded for factual findings concerning attorney negligence, proximate cause, and the extent of any contribution by Therrien.
4. The no-contribution rule did not support summary judgment on the deed-related claims because Howe could not be treated as a joint tortfeasor with Therrien in the relevant context, and the alleged injuries caused by the deed deficiencies differed from the injuries caused by Therrien's permit violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a client's intentional misconduct automatically constitutes a complete defense to a legal-malpractice claim against the client's attorney.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on liabilities arising from the client's own permit violations and related enforcement costs.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on liabilities arising from allegedly negligent preparation of deeds and deed-related compliance costs.
4. Whether the rule barring contribution among joint tortfeasors independently supported summary judgment on the deed-related claims.
5. Whether the trial court improperly granted summary judgment based on a theory not adequately raised in the summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded