Summary
In Hughes v. Klein, 139 Vt. 232, 233, 427 A.2d 353, 354 (1981), this Court held that the standard of care within the legal profession required lawyers to exercise "the customary skill and knowledge which normally prevails at the time and place."
Summary of this case from Russo v. GriffinOpinion
No. 137-80
Opinion Filed February 3, 1981
1. Attorney and Client — Competency of Counsel — Professional Standards
In suit alleging attorney breached professional standards and caused plaintiff monetary damages, the standard for attorney's legal services, as in other professions, was the exercise of the customary skill and knowledge which normally prevailed at the place and time.
2. Appeal and Error — Findings — Tests for Overturning
In suit against attorney for breach of professional standards causing plaintiff monetary damages, whether the advice attorney gave plaintiff, which plaintiff claimed damaged her, was consistent with local standards for attorneys was a question of fact and supreme court would not set aside lower court's finding that the advice was consistent with community standards where the finding was not clearly erroneous.
Appeal from judgment for attorney sued for breach of professional standards allegedly causing plaintiff damages. District Court, Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit, Powers, Acting District Judge, presiding. Affirmed.
Ellen R. Hughes, pro se, Lynn, Massachusetts, Plaintiff.
Stephen L. Klein, pro se, Rutland, Defendant.
Present: Barney, C.J., Larrow, Billings and Hill, JJ., and Shangraw, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
Plaintiff appeals from a small claims action in which she alleged that the defendant, while acting as her attorney in a divorce action, breached professional standards and consequently caused monetary damages.
During the course of the domestic relations action, plaintiff's then-husband came to plaintiff's residence and requested that she relinquish his personal bank statements and checks as well as monthly statements and checks relating to an account jointly held by them so he could turn them over to his attorney. Plaintiff consulted defendant and was advised that she should release the documents.
The documents were never returned, and plaintiff subsequently spent $48.75 obtaining photocopies of certain checks she had surrendered. She filed suit against defendant, claiming he abrogated his responsibilities as an attorney by advising her to relinquish possession of original documents relating to future litigation. In concluding that the defendant did not breach his professional service contract, the trial court found defendant's advice to be consistent with community standards.
The standard for legal services, as in other professions, is the exercise of the customary skill and knowledge which normally prevails at the time and place. See In re Cronin, 133 Vt. 234, 240, 336 A.2d 164, 168 (1975). Whether defendant's advice was consistent with local standards is a question of fact. We will not set aside a finding of fact unless clearly erroneous, recognizing the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and evidence. V.R.C.P. 52(a). A search of the record discloses evidence which, taken in the light most favorable to the defendant, supports the finding. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of V.R.C.P. 52(a). Monti v. Town of Northfield, 135 Vt. 97, 101-02, 369 A.2d 1373, 1377 (1977).
Judgment affirmed.