## Facts

- Steven J. Faber hired attorney Douglas D. Herman to represent him in a dissolution action ending a nineteen-year marriage.
- The marital estate included Steven’s Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) defined-benefit pension; IPERS reported an “investment value” of $38,179.38 and a higher “death benefit.”
- The dissolution decree was stipulated and contemplated an equal division of the IPERS interest, using $38,179.38 as the valuation proxy; it stated Karen would be paid $19,100 through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).
- Karen’s attorney initially drafted a QDRO directing IPERS to pay Karen $19,100 immediately; IPERS rejected it because plan rules did not allow payment to an alternate payee until the participant’s retirement or death.
- A second QDRO was entered providing for payment upon Steven’s retirement using a coverture-type formula allocating a proportional share of the benefit.
- Herman informed Steven the QDRO was final and consistent with the settlement, but did not disclose the initial rejection or that the operative QDRO provided for ongoing benefits rather than an immediate lump sum.
- After retirement, Steven learned his monthly benefit would be about $1,200 and Karen’s about $960; he claimed he intended Karen’s total recovery to be capped at $19,100.
- Steven sued Herman for legal malpractice, claiming damages equal to the present value of benefits Karen would receive in excess of $19,100; a jury found Herman 70% negligent and awarded damages, and the trial court denied JNOV.

## Issues

1. Whether the client proved, as a matter of law, that the attorney’s alleged negligence in advising about and implementing the IPERS division caused the client’s claimed damages.
2. Whether the operative QDRO and resulting benefit stream reflected the parties’ stipulated bargain such that the client’s damages theory was legally untenable.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and reversed the district court judgment for the client.
- The court held the client failed to establish causation as a matter of law.
- The court concluded the coverture-based QDRO implemented the parties’ agreement to evenly divide the IPERS benefit within plan constraints.
- Because the alleged loss stemmed from the nature of the defined-benefit plan and the parties’ stipulated method of division, not from the attorney’s conduct, the malpractice claim failed.

## Legal Principles

- A legal malpractice plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation (cause in fact and legal/proximate cause), and damages.
- Causation requires proof that, but for the attorney’s negligence, the client would have obtained a better result in the underlying matter.
- Where an underlying settlement reflects an intent to divide a defined-benefit pension equally, a later claim that the other spouse should have been limited to a fixed dollar figure cannot supply malpractice damages absent proof that such a limitation was part of the bargain and achievable under governing plan rules.
- Damages theories that treat a defined-benefit pension as a fixed, liquid account, contrary to plan structure and the settlement’s substance, may fail as a matter of law on causation.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the malpractice verdict because the client did not show that any attorney error caused the claimed financial harm; the challenged QDRO effectuated the parties’ stipulated equal division of a defined-benefit pension under IPERS rules, and the client’s attempt to reframe that bargain into a fixed-dollar cap did not establish legally cognizable malpractice damages.


Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2007)