Smith v. Chhabra
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01920-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Fraud - Breach of contract Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-09-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. SWAN YERGER Disposition: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED Case Number: 251-09-000617-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Patricia Smith |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Rogen Chhabra and Tabor, Chhabra & Gibbs, P.A. | ROBERT P. THOMPSON, STEPHANIE C. EDGAR |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Legal malpractice - Fraud - Breach of contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patricia Smith retained Rogen Chhabra and his law firm, Tabor, Chhabra and Gibbs, P.A., to represent her in her workers’ compensation claim. Smith later terminated Chhabra as her counsel and filed suit against both Chhabra and his law firm, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and legal malpractice. Chhabra moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that Chhabra committed fraud and legal malpractice and that TCG breached its contract with Smith. Smith takes issue with the handling of her disability payments by Chhabra. She alleges that Chhabra committed fraud when he signed and deposited the checks without her permission. A successful fraud claim requires that the plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence: a representation, its falsity, its materiality, the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, his intent that it should be acted on by the hearer and in the manner reasonably contemplated, the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity, his reliance on its truth, his right to rely thereon, and his consequent and proximate injury. Smith’s contract with TCG expressly authorized it to receive disability payments on her behalf, deposit the funds in the firm’s trust account, and remit Smith’s portion, less a twenty-five percent contingency fee. There is no evidence in the record that the firm acted outside of the express authority granted under the contract or that Chhabra misappropriated Smith’s disability payments. The firm’s actions conformed completely with what Smith contractually authorized it to do. Furthermore, while the contract does not describe the specific services that Chhabra agreed to render in pursuing Smith’s workers’ compensation claim, the record reveals that Chhabra filed a petition to controvert, a motion to correct temporary total disability payments, a prehearing statement, and a motion to compel payment of unpaid benefits. Based on the record, Chhabra appropriately pursued Smith’s workers’ compensation claim. While an attorney-client relationship existed between Chhabra and Smith, there is no evidence in the record that Chhabra committed malpractice in the course of his representation of Smith. Smith’s allegations that Chhabra either closed or settled her workers’ compensation claim without her consent are not supported by the record. After Chhabra withdrew as counsel of record, Smith continued to pursue her claim pro se. However, Chhabra had no further involvement in the claim and did not participate in the resolution of Smith’s case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
