Tommy Hand v. Howell, Sarto & Howell and William P. Roberts Ii

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for the attorneys in Hand's legal-malpractice action because Hand offered only speculation that naming the corporate employer as an additional defendant would have produced a larger settlement. The court reasoned that the employer's insurer already funded most of the settlement, juries must base damages on the injury rather than a defendant's wealth or corporate identity, and the alleged prejudice therefore lacked evidentiary support. Justice Shaw, dissenting, would have found substantial evidence that the omitted defendant increased the case's settlement value, while Justice Murdock concurred in the result on the ground that any settlement difference was legally immaterial and unquantifiable.