Barrister Global Services Network, Inc. VS T. Jay Seale, William Stephens, Seale & Ross, APLC, & Joseph D. Zopolsky
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1378 BARRISTER GLOBAL SERVICES NETWORK INC VERSUS T JAY SEALE WILLIAM STEPHENS SEALE ROSS APLC AND JOSEPH D ZOPOLSKY On Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court Parish of Tangipahoa Louisiana Docket No 20100003925 Division A Honorable Wayne Ray Chutz Judge Presiding Stephanie A Fratello New Orleans LA Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant Barrister Global Services Network Inc Nancy J Marshall Karen P Holland Matthew M McCluer Deutsch Kerrigan Stiles P L Attorneys for Defendants Appellees T Jay Seale William Stephens and Seale Ross APLC New Orleans LA BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND DRAKE JJ OCT 0 3 2013 Judgment rendered PARRO 1 In this legal malpractice case Barrister Global Services Network Inc Barrister appeals a judgment in favor of T Jay Seale William Stephens and Seale Ross APLC the defendants finding that Barrister sclaims against the defendants were perempted and dismissing the suit For the following reasons we affirm the judgment FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 28 2010 Barrister filed suit against the defendants alleging they had committed legal malpractice in the handling of Barrister interests in the matter of s McAfee Inc v Agilysys Inc a case filed in civil district court in Dallas Texas the McAfee case The petition described the following acts constituting legal malpractice a Failing to properly analyze the presence or absence of insurance coverage for Barrister and providing erroneous legal counsel based upon said coverage analysis Ross supervision by Seale Defendants of local counsel Attorney Zopolsky with respect to the handling of the McAfee case and b Negligent hiring retention c Billing Barrister for legal fees and costs that were unearned and or excessive in nature d Improper legal strategy and tactics and e Any and all other acts or omissions that will be demonstrated at the time of trial In response to the petition the defendants filed an exception raising the objection of prescription peremption alleging that the acts errors and omissions complained of in the petition occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit and as such were perempted pursuant to LSA R 9 The defendants S 5605 memorandum in support of its exception included the affidavit of T Jay Seale which identified certain letters emails and memoranda that were attached as exhibits In a letter written to Barrister on August 21 2008 Seale discussed all of the issues that were later raised in the petition acknowledging the problems that had developed in the litigation as well as the billing issues between Barrister and its attorneys In addition by March 30 2009 Seale informed Barrister in an email that Travelers St Paul was s 2 likely to prevail on its motion for summary judgment so Barrister should forego its insurance coverage and defense claims The exception was scheduled for hearing on August 29 2011 Barrister filed no opposition to the exception but on the morning of the hearing filed a supplemental and amending petition including additional allegations which are summarized as follows a On advice of counsel Barrister entered into a settlement agreement with McAfee for 300 in June 2008 000 b During this same time period Barrister agreed to sever and abate the claims between Agilysys Inc and Barrister to permit the issues between McAfee and Agilysis to proceed to judgment and or appeal This agreement was part of a settlement between Barrister and Agilysys in which Barrister agreed to pay Agilysis 100 000 conditioned upon the McAfeeAgilysis claims being fully resolved on appeal c On September 16 2008 the court severed and abated Barrister s claims against Agilysis pending final resolution of McAfee claims s on appeal or further orders of the trial court d On February 9 2011 Agilysis filed a motion to consolidate and reinstate its claims against Barrister in the McAfee case e On July 26 2011 McAfee and Agilysis filed a joint motion to dismiss their claims against each other with prejudice with Agilysis reserving its rights to pursue its claims against Barrister f Agilysis filed a cross claim against Barrister on July 26 2011 seeking indemnification for any and all damages assessed against The Agilysys by McAfee plus attorney fees and court costs damages sought in this cross claim exceeded the 100 000 previously tendered by Barrister to Agilysis At the hearing on the exception the defendants contended that the correspondence between Seale and Barrister in August 2008 and March 2009 showed that Barrister knew then about all the problems with the McAfee case Therefore its lawsuit which was filed in September 2010 more than a year after the complained of acts had occurred and been discovered was perempted Additionally the new claims asserted in the supplemental and amending petition involved the agreement entered into between Barrister and Agilysis in June 2008 which was conditioned on the McAfeeAgilysis claims being fully resolved on appeal Therefore Barrister knew at that 3 time that its 100 settlement agreement with Agilysis might not be final Barrister 000 argued that its supplemental and amending petition raised new claims that had occurred in early 2011 when the settlement with Agilysis fell through and the defendants were still representing it Therefore the new allegations of events that had occurred since the petition was filed were timely Also since the supplemental and amending petition was filed within one year of Barrister sdiscovery of the reinstatement of claims against it by Agilysis it related back to the filing date of the original petition The court noted that the settlement agreement entered into in June 2008 contained language indicating that it was conditional Therefore Barrister knew at that time that Agilysis might eventually re assert its claims against Barrister For that reason the court sustained the exception and dismissed the lawsuit in a judgment signed September 16 2011 This appeal followed APPLICABLE LAW Legal malpractice claims are governed by LSAR 9 which states in S 5605 pertinent part A No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state any partnership of such attorneys at law or any professional corporation company organization association enterprise or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law whether based upon tort or breach of contract or otherwise arising out of an engagement to provide legal services shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act omission or neglect or within one year from the date that the alleged act omission or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered however even as to actions filed within one year from the date of such discovery in all events such actions shall be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the alleged act omission or neglect B The provisions of this Section are remedial and apply to all causes of action without regard to the date when the alleged act omission or neglect occurred The one year and three year periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are peremptive periods within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 and in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461 may not be renounced interrupted or suspended After this appeal was docketed on November 19 2012 this court remanded this matter for the limited purpose of having the trial court sign a valid written judgment that included appropriate decretal language as required by LSA C art 1918 P A revised judgment was signed by the trial court on November 28 2012 and the record was supplemented to include that judgment 4 Prescription commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort A prescriptive period will begin to run even if the injured party does not have actual knowledge of facts that would entitle him to bring a suit as long as there is constructive knowledge of same Campo v Correa 01 2707 La 6 828 So 02 21 2d 502 510 Constructive knowledge is whatever notice is enough to excite attention and put the injured party on guard and call for inquiry Such notice is tantamount to knowledge or notice of everything to which a reasonable inquiry may lead Such information or knowledge as ought to reasonably put the alleged victim on inquiry is sufficient to start running of prescription Id at 510 11 Ordinarily the exceptor bears the burden of proof at the trial of the peremptory exception Campo 828 So at 508 However if prescription is evident on the face of 2d the pleadings the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the action has not prescribed Id The plaintiffs petition cannot be considered prescribed on its face if the plaintiffs pleadings make a prima facie showing that it was filed within one year from the date of discovery and within a period of three years from the date of the alleged act omission or neglect Id at 509 Specifically the plaintiff must allege facts with particularity which indicate that the injury and its causal relationship to the alleged misconduct were not apparent or discoverable until within the year before the suit was filed in order to avoid the shifting of the burden of proof to the plaintiff Id at 509 n 9 In re DeBram0280 La App 1st Cir 8 102 So 830 836 37 12 27 3d In Reeder v North 960165 La App 5th Cir 11 683 So 912 916 96 14 2d reversed 97 0239 La 10 701 So 1291 the court of appeal held that while 97 21 2d the attorney client relationship is in existence and the attorney is actively attempting to remedy the alleged malpractice until the judgment giving rise to the malpractice claim becomes definitive a legal malpractice claim does not ripen into a cause of action and prescription or peremption does not begin to run The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed holding the three year period is peremptive 5 Reeder 701 So at 1298 2d The plaintiffs claim was time barred because he did not file suit within three years from the date of the negligent act even though he did not discover the basis for his claim until after the time period had expired Reeder 701 So at 129697 2d In Naghi v Brener 08 2527 La 6 17 So 919 925 26 the supreme 09 26 3d court dealt with the issue of whether an amended petition in a legal malpractice suit could relate back to the time of filing the original petition under LSAC art 1153 P C when the time period for filing suit is peremptive rather than prescriptive In discussing LSAR 9 the court again stated that the statute clearly provides that S 5605 the one year and three year time periods are peremptive The court found that the relation back of a pleading would avoid the operation of a peremptive time period by allowing a pleading filed after the expiration of the period to relate back to the filing of an original and timely filed petition Naghi 17 So at 925 3d Since nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period the court held that an amended and supplemental petition cannot relate back to the original petition in a legal malpractice case Naghi 17 So at 926 3d ANALYSIS In this appeal Barrister assigns as error the court ruling on the exception of s prescriptionperemption with respect to all of its claims against the defendants Admitting that certain claims asserted within its original petition may be time barred it asserts that its supplemental claims against the defendants were filed within one year of discovering them and within three years of when the alleged acts omission or neglect occurred Thus the supplemental claims are not perempted under the provisions of LSAR 9 Barrister argues that the new claims in its supplemental S 5605 and amending petition were not discovered until February 2011 when Agilysis filed a motion to consolidate and reinstate its claims against Barrister in the McAfee case Z Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1153 provides When the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading the amendment relates back to the date of filing of the original pleading 6 Therefore the filing of its supplemental and amending petition on August 29 2011 was within one year of the discovery of the acts giving rise to its claims Barrister further contends that its supplemental and amending petition relates back to the filing of its original petition on September 28 2010 Therefore applying LSA C art 1153 the P supplemental and amending petition was fled within three years of the date of those acts which occurred in June 2008 We note first that all of the claims asserted in the original petition were clearly perempted The evidence submitted in support of the defendants exception shows that communication between Barrister and the defendants occurred during a meeting in August 2008 and covered all of the acts of alleged malpractice except for the failure to properly analyze the insurance coverage issue Additionally an email in March 2009 advised Barrister that the defendants evaluation of the viability of Barrister sinsurance claims was in error and those claims were without merit under certain policy provisions Therefore by March 2009 Barrister knew about all the problems with the McAfee case that were asserted as malpractice claims in the original petition Since the petition was not filed until September 2010 the filing was more than one year since the alleged acts omissions or neglect occurred and as such was perempted under LSA S 5605 R9 Furthermore contrary to Barrister sarguments on appeal its supplemental and amending pleading could not relate back to the original filing as this would avoid the operation of the peremptive time period by allowing a pleading filed after the expiration of the period to relate back to the filing of an original and timely filed petition See Naahi 17 So at 925 3d More importantly since the original petition was not timely filed there was nothing the supplemental and amending petition could relate back to Additionally as the district court recognized the settlement agreement between Barrister and Agilysis in June 2008 was by its express terms conditional A conditional obligation is one dependent on an uncertain event If the obligation may not be enforced until the uncertain event occurs the condition is suspensive 7 LSAC art C 1767 In this case the uncertain event in the settlement agreement was the eventual resolution of all claims between McAfee and Agilysis on appeal Since those claims were not completely resolved on appeal the settlement between Barrister and Agilysis was unenforceable allowing Agilysis to reassert all of its claims against Barrister This lack of finality should have been obvious to Barrister under a simple reading of the agreement when it was confected Any negligence or misrepresentation by the defendants concerning that agreement or its finality occurred before or when it was signed in June 2008 Therefore Barrister claims in the supplemental and amending s petition concerning its newly discovered exposure to additional damages were also perempted CONCLUSION For the above reasons we affirm the November 28 2012 final judgment of the district court All costs of this appeal are assessed to Barrister AFFIRMED 8 NO 2012 CA 1378 BARRISTER GLOBAL SERVICES NETWORK INC FIRST CIRCUIT VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL T JAY SEALE WILLIAM STEPHENS SEALE AND JOSEPH ROSS APLC D ZOPOLSKY STATE OF LOUISIANA Gf WELCH J concurring in part and dissenting in part I agree with majority that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff s claims against the defendant based on peremption except the plaintiff claim that s defendant Bill Barrister for legal fees and costs that were unearned and ed or excessive in nature I believe that the trial court legally erred in dismissing that claim which is not a claim of legal malpractice but rather is a fee dispute not subject to the peremptive periods set forth in La R 9 S 5605 Louisiana Revised Statute 9 provides a one yearthree year peremptive 5605 period for an action against an attorney arising out of an engagement to provide legal services Raspanti v Raspanti 2007295 La App 5 Cir 12 977 07 11 2d So 95 98 writ denied 2008 0096 La 3 977 So 906 08 7 2d Read in its entirety La R 9 reflects an intent to cover all actions for damages S 5605 predicated on traditional legal malpractice but not more Id Thus the peremptive period does not apply to every action against every attorney under any theory whatsoever Id citing Davis v Parker 58 F 183 5 Cir 1995 Fee 3d disputes have been held to be outside of the peremptive period of La R 5605 9 S as have duress and fraud Raspanti 977 So at 98 see also Shreveport Credit 2d Recovery Inc v Modelist 33 La App 2 Cir 5115100 760 So 681 369 nd 2d 685 686 writ denied 2000 2159 La 10 772 So 125 holding that a 00 27 2d 1 Although the plaintiff petition is captioned as an action for damages for legal s malpractice courts should look through the caption of pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice to the parties Southeastern Louisiana University v Cook 2012 0021 La App I Cir 9 104 So 124 128 129 see also La C art 12 21 3d P 865 s client claim that he was overbilled for legal services was not a claim for legal malpractice within the intendment of La R 9 Louisiana Revised Statute S 5605 5605 9 as passed by the legislature is entitled Actions for Legal Malpratice and should not be read so broadly to include within its coverage a contractual claim by a client pertaining to a bill for services that were not performed by the attorney Shreveport Credit Recovery Inc 760 So at 686 Such billing disputes remain subject to the general prescriptive periods applicable to contractual claims e La i C art 3499 Shreveport Credit Recovery Inc 760 So at 686 2d Accordingly the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff claim that he s was billed for respectfully legal concur fees and costs that were in part and dissent in part unearned or excessive Thus I
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
