## Facts

- Jessy and Editha Ang owned Evergreen Medical Panel, Inc., a company performing independent medical examinations.
- Dr. Ang became the target of a government investigation into alleged fraud; warrants were executed and documents seized.
- The Angs were arrested and later indicted in federal court on 18 counts, including conspiracy, bank fraud, tax fraud, and false statements.
- The Angs retained Richard Hansen and Michael Martin as criminal defense counsel under flat-fee arrangements.
- During trial, counsel recommended accepting a plea offer that the Angs considered worse than earlier offers; the Angs alleged they were pressured into pleading guilty to two counts.
- After the pleas, the Angs obtained a second opinion; new counsel assisted them in withdrawing the guilty pleas.
- The federal case proceeded to trial, and the Angs were acquitted on all 18 counts.
- The Angs sued their former defense attorneys for legal malpractice, alleging negligent pressure to accept an unfavorable plea.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff suing former criminal defense counsel for malpractice must prove actual innocence of the underlying criminal charges by a preponderance of the evidence as an element of the negligence claim.
2. Whether an acquittal (after withdrawal of guilty pleas) satisfies any innocence requirement, or whether factual innocence must be affirmatively shown.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed judgment for the defendant attorneys.
- The court held that a criminal-defense malpractice plaintiff must prove actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court approved an instruction requiring the Angs to prove both (1) ultimate acquittal on the relevant charges and (2) actual innocence.
- Because the jury found the Angs did not prove actual innocence, dismissal of the malpractice claim was proper.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, actual innocence is an element of a criminal-defense legal malpractice claim and must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
- “Innocence in fact” is required; showing only that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is insufficient.
- Acquittal does not establish actual innocence for malpractice purposes; it reflects only the prosecution’s failure to meet the criminal burden.
- The innocence requirement is tied to causation and damages: injuries associated with prosecution, conviction, or incarceration are not attributed to counsel’s negligence absent proof that the plaintiff did not commit the charged acts.
- Policy supports barring recovery where a plaintiff’s own criminal conduct, rather than counsel’s performance, is the source of the claimed harm.

## Conclusion

The court required criminal-defense malpractice plaintiffs to prove factual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, holding that an acquittal alone does not satisfy the causation and policy constraints governing malpractice claims arising from criminal representation.


Ang v. Martin, 114 P.3d 637 (Wash. 2005)