Lenn v. Baldwin

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 02-19-2015
  • Case #: A149072
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, J.; Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Jury instructions which are correct statements of law and not likely to create an erroneous impression in the minds of jurors are not grounds to remand.

Lenn retained Baldwin to represent them in a real property dispute. Lenn brought a malpractice suit against Baldwin, alleging negligence a number of ways, including failing to pursue settlement negotiations, and failing to advise them of the risks of going to trial on their adverse possession claims, among others. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Baldwin. Lenn appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that “an attorney is not liable for alleged negligence in how he handled a client's case at trial if the clients had no valid claim for relief to begin with, because the attorney's conduct could not be a cause of any injury or damage to the clients.” The Court held “[t]o the extent that plaintiffs are of the view that the trial court should have given the jury more detailed instructions relating to an attorney’s potential liability for pretrial conduct, they did not request such instructions.” But, the instruction the trial court gave was a correct statement of law and was not likely to create an erroneous impression the minds of the jurors. Affirmed.

Advanced Search