Introduction

The case Gordon N. Hizey, et al., Appellants, v. Timothy W. Carpenter, et al., Respondents (119 Wn. 2d 251) adjudicated by the Suprema Court of Washington in June 1992, presents a significant precedent in the realm of legal malpractice. The appellants, consisting of Gordon and Jessie Hizey among others, filed a legal malpractice action against attorney Timothy W. Carpenter and his associates. Central to the dispute was whether the trial court erred in excluding references to the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) during the malpractice litigation.

The key issues revolved around the admissibility of ethical rules as evidence in establishing a breach of the duty of care owed by an attorney, the appropriateness of specific jury instructions, and the overall impact on future legal malpractice cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the Superior Court of Skagit County's judgment in favor of the defendant attorneys. The appellate court held that the trial court correctly excluded testimony and jury instructions that explicitly referred to the CPR and RPC. It determined that such codes are not meant to set civil liability standards and thus should not be used directly in legal malpractice suits. The court further upheld the exclusion of certain testimonial evidence, the sufficiency of jury instructions on duty of care, damages, and contributory negligence, and denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) or for a new trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several precedents to support its decision:

• Ambrosio McLaughlin et al.: Emphasized that ethical rules do not create civil liability.
• PECK v. MEDA-CARE AMBULANCE CORP.: Highlighted the intent of ethical codes to exclude tort liability.
• BROWN v. SAMALIN BOCK, P.C.: Reinforced that violations of ethical codes do not constitute independent causes of action.
• HANSEN v. WIGHTMAN: Established the standard of care for attorneys based on a statewide standard rather than local norms.
• WALKER v. BANGS: Discussed the applicability of specialist standards in legal malpractice.

These cases collectively underscore the principle that professional ethical codes are designed for internal regulation and discipline, not as direct measures for civil liability in malpractice suits.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on the distinction between professional ethical standards and common law standards of care. The CPR and RPC are intended to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and ensure ethical conduct but explicitly disclaim any intention to create civil liability standards. The court emphasized that:

• The CPR and RPC do not define the standard for civil liability in malpractice actions.
• Using ethical codes as a basis for malpractice would conflate disciplinary measures with civil remedies, which have distinct purposes and frameworks.
• Professional codes provide broad guidelines that are too vague to serve as practical standards for civil liability.

Furthermore, the court noted policy considerations, arguing that allowing ethical codes to dictate malpractice standards would disrupt the balance between maintaining professional integrity and upholding legally enforceable standards of care.

Impact

This judgment establishes a clear boundary between professional regulatory frameworks and civil litigation standards. Specifically, it:

• Precludes plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases from relying directly on the CPR and RPC to establish a breach of duty of care.
• Ensures that malpractice suits focus on common law standards of care, preserving the distinct roles of disciplinary bodies and civil courts.
• Limits the potential for juries to conflate ethical infractions with civil negligence, thereby maintaining the objectivity and clarity of malpractice proceedings.

Future legal malpractice cases in Washington State must adhere to common law principles for determining negligence, independent of professional ethical codes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (n.o.v.)

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a request made to the court to overturn the jury's decision on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have reached such a verdict based on the evidence presented.

Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) & Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)

These are sets of ethical guidelines that govern the behavior and professional responsibilities of attorneys. While they establish standards for maintaining integrity and ethical practice within the legal profession, they are not designed to set civil liability standards for malpractice.

Standard of Care

In legal malpractice, the standard of care refers to the level of competence and diligence expected from a reasonably prudent attorney in similar circumstances. It is assessed based on common law principles rather than solely on professional ethical codes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in Hizey v. Carpenter reinforces the distinction between professional ethical standards and civil liability in legal malpractice cases. By affirming that the CPR and RPC cannot be directly used to establish duty of care or breach thereof in malpractice litigation, the court preserves the integrity of both disciplinary processes and civil adjudications. This landmark ruling ensures that legal malpractice remains grounded in common law principles, safeguarding the procedural clarity and objectivity necessary for fair adjudication.