Background
Dario and Flavia Carnevale obtained substantial money judgments against the former clients of several law firms and lawyers. The judgment debtors later filed separate bankruptcy petitions.
The bankruptcy trustees declined to pursue potential legal-malpractice claims the judgment debtors might have had against their former lawyers. The trustees instead assigned those claims to the Carnevales on an “AS IS, WHERE IS and WITH ALL FAULTS” basis. Neither the trustees nor the bankruptcy court warranted that the assignments were valid or gave the Carnevales standing to sue in Florida state court.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the Carnevales’ malpractice suit. Under Florida law, legal-malpractice claims generally are not assignable because they are personal tort claims arising from confidential attorney-client relationships.
That rule applied with particular force because the Carnevales, as assignees, had been litigation adversaries of the judgment debtors. The bankruptcy court’s approval of the qualified assignments did not override Florida’s prohibition on assigning legal-malpractice claims or provide the Carnevales standing to bring them.
Key Takeaways
- Florida generally treats legal-malpractice claims as nonassignable personal tort claims.
- A bankruptcy trustee’s assignment and bankruptcy-court approval do not themselves establish standing in a Florida malpractice action.
- Assignments to an adversary of the former client raise the core policy concerns behind the nonassignment rule.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that bankruptcy administration does not create an exception to Florida’s longstanding bar on assigning legal-malpractice claims. Parties acquiring a debtor’s potential claims through bankruptcy must still establish that those claims are assignable and enforceable under applicable state law.