NOLAN P. CHIPMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
NEIL CHONIN, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A party cannot recover damages for legal malpractice unless the lawyer's neglected duty proximately caused the client's loss, and in contract actions, damages must be a proximate result of the breach.
Plaintiff sued defendants for legal malpractice and breach of contract, alleging their withdrawal as counsel caused him to lose monetary damages in an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nolan Chipman appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in a legal malpractice/breach of contract case. We affirm.
A party cannot recover damages for legal malpractice unless it is shown that the lawyer neglected a reasonable duty which was the proximate cause of the client’s loss. Davenport v. Store, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In breach of contract actions, a plaintiff may recover only if the damages were a proximate result of the breach. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Chipman alleged in his complaint that the defendant’s withdrawal as counsel caused him to lose monetary damages in an age discrimination case. However, the record is devoid of any evidence which would support this claim.1 Any loss of these damages must be attributable to Chipman himself, since he chose to voluntarily accept his former employer’s settlement offer. Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Vukovich v. Leo, 447 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (where reasonable minds cannot differ, proximate cause becomes a question of law).
Affirmed.
. The record indicates that: (1) the defendant properly withdrew from the case ten months before trial was scheduled; (2) Chipman engaged new counsel; and (3) Chipman fired his new counsel approximately four weeks before the start of trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Sure Snap Corp. & Elaine Shure v. Baena, 705 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…. 2d 604 (1996). The third element regarding the loss to the client is not satisfied unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is an amount of damages which the client would have recovered but for the attorney’s negligence. See Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Davenport v. Stone, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kay v. Bricker, 485 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, even though the jury found that Baena and the law firm were at fault for failing to preserve the underlying cl…
-
Sime Michael Dadic and Margaret Z. Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…in privity with the client throughout the entire course of the underlying action. Where the attorney-client relationship ends before its conclusion, the question is whether the attorney proximately caused the client’s damages. See Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Proximate cause may be considered a question of law where reasonable minds cannot differ. See Id. at 364. However, here, reasonable minds could differ as to this [*924] in the event it is determined that Schneider did not p…
-
Jacquelyn N. Young v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 88 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ustain a verdict in favor of the non-movant.’ ” Conrad v. Young, 10 So. 3d 1154, 1157-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So. 2d 990, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Becker & Poliakoff relies on Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), for the general principle that “[a] party cannot recover damages for legal malpractice unless it is shown that the lawyer neglected a reasonable duty which was the proximate cause of the client’s loss.” The law firm argues t…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Davenport v. Stone, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Vukovich v. LEO, 447 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)