## Facts

- The Chapmans retained Rick J. Bearfield, a Johnson City attorney, to represent them in a medical malpractice action arising from a family member’s death.
- The Chapmans became dissatisfied with Bearfield’s representation and retained new counsel, who advised pursuing a legal malpractice claim.
- The Chapmans filed a pro se legal malpractice action against Bearfield in Washington County Circuit Court.
- Bearfield moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit asserting no malpractice and referencing the professional standard of care for attorneys in “the upper East Tennessee area.”
- The Chapmans opposed summary judgment with an expert affidavit from Richard L. Duncan, a Knoxville attorney, stating familiarity with the standard of care for Tennessee attorneys handling medical malpractice cases and opining Bearfield’s conduct fell below what a reasonable attorney would have done.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bearfield, concluding the plaintiffs’ expert proof was inadequate.
- The Court of Appeals reversed.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to determine whether legal malpractice experts must be familiar with a local standard of care or a statewide standard.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee attorney malpractice is governed by a local (community-based) standard of care or a single statewide standard of care.
2. Whether an expert affidavit stating familiarity with the Tennessee standard of care, without demonstrating knowledge of a particular locality’s standard, can create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a single, statewide professional standard of care applies to attorneys practicing in Tennessee.
- The Court ruled that expert witnesses in Tennessee legal malpractice cases must be familiar with the statewide standard, not a locality-based standard.
- Applying that rule, the Court concluded the plaintiffs’ expert affidavit—asserting familiarity with the Tennessee standard and opining breach—was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in effect, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee legal malpractice is measured by a single statewide professional standard of care for attorneys.
- The locality rule associated with certain medical malpractice claims does not govern the standard of care for Tennessee attorneys.
- On summary judgment, competent expert proof that the defendant fell below the applicable professional standard may create a genuine issue of material fact on breach, requiring trial.

## Conclusion

The court established that Tennessee attorney malpractice claims are governed by a statewide standard of care and held that an expert’s stated familiarity with that statewide standard, coupled with an opinion of breach, is adequate to defeat summary judgment even without proof of a local standard.


Chapman v. Bearfield, 207 S.W.3d 736 (Tenn. 2006)