From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Debakey v. Staggs

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 4, 1981
612 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. 1981)

Summary

holding that clients were consumers of attorney's legal services

Summary of this case from Burnap v. Linnartz

Opinion

No. B-9751.

March 4, 1981.

Appeal from the District Court No. 55, Harris County, Cartwright, J.

Rena G. Nirenberg, Houston, for petitioner.

Mullins, Box Parish, Kenneth L. Box, Houston, for respondents.


Respondents, Marilyn Sue Staggs, et al., plaintiffs in the trial court, recovered a judgment against petitioner, Douglas N. DeBakey, Esq., under the Deceptive Trade Practice-Consumer Protection Act. (D.T.P.A.), Section 17.41 et seq., of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Annotated, for their damages caused by petitioner's "unconscionable" actions committed in connection with his agreement to furnish the legal services necessary to change the name of a daughter of Mrs. Staggs by a prior marriage. The trial court found damages of $420.00, which amount was tripled and judgment rendered for the Staggs. The court of civil appeals reduced the amount of damages to the sum of $170.00 and affirmed the trial court judgment as modified. 605 S.W.2d 631.

We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that respondents were "consumers" as defined by the D.T.P.A., Section 17.45(4). No question is presented by this application as to the standard of care by which a legal malpractice claim is to be determined, and we expressly reserve that question for future determination.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.


Summaries of

Debakey v. Staggs

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 4, 1981
612 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. 1981)

holding that clients were consumers of attorney's legal services

Summary of this case from Burnap v. Linnartz

finding an attorney unconscionably took advantage of a client to a grossly unfair degree when the attorney knowingly failed to obtain in a timely manner a name change for the client's minor child

Summary of this case from Latham v. Castillo

concluding plaintiff proved damages in the amount of $170 in additional attorney's fees caused by defendant's failure to complete name change request as agreed

Summary of this case from Holliday v. Weaver

concluding plaintiff proved damages in the amount of $170 in additional attorney's fees caused by defendant's failure to complete name change request as agreed

Summary of this case from Holliday v. Weaver
Case details for

Debakey v. Staggs

Case Details

Full title:Douglas N. DeBAKEY, Petitioner, v. Marilyn Sue STAGGS et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Mar 4, 1981

Citations

612 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. 1981)

Citing Cases

White Budd Van Ness v. Major-Gladys

In Heath v. Herron, 732 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ den.), the Court wrote, at…

Latham v. Castillo

Attorneys can be found to have engaged in unconscionable conduct by the way they represent their clients.…