## Facts

- Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. retained a law firm and one of its attorneys to negotiate and draft an employment agreement for physician Donielle Daigle, including a covenant not to compete.
- The agreement imposed a three-year restriction on competing medical practice within a 50-mile radius of Memorial Hospital at Gulfport and included limits on direct solicitation of patients served by the employer within the prior three years.
- The agreement also provided for a waiver of enforcement under certain conditions in exchange for $150,000 in liquidated damages.
- Dr. Daigle later resigned and opened a competing OB-GYN practice.
- Gulfport OB-GYN claimed it suffered substantial financial loss and sued the law firm and drafting attorney for legal malpractice, alleging negligent drafting of the non-compete and related terms.
- The record reflected that the non-compete language was substantially similar to language Gulfport OB-GYN had accepted in prior physician employment agreements prepared by another firm.

## Issues

1. Whether Gulfport OB-GYN produced sufficient evidence that alleged negligent drafting of the employment agreement proximately caused its losses by depriving it of a “better deal.”
2. Whether Gulfport OB-GYN presented non-speculative proof that Dr. Daigle would have agreed to more restrictive non-compete terms or different liquidated damages.
3. Whether Gulfport OB-GYN proved the fact and extent of damages attributable to the alleged drafting errors.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the law firm and attorney.
- The court held Gulfport OB-GYN failed to present sufficient evidence of causation and damages.
- The court concluded Gulfport OB-GYN did not show a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged drafting negligence, it would have obtained materially more favorable contractual terms or avoided the claimed losses.

## Legal Principles

- Mississippi legal-malpractice claims require proof of: (1) attorney-client relationship; (2) attorney negligence; (3) proximate causation; and (4) the fact and extent of injury.
- In transactional-malpractice cases, causation generally requires proof that, but for the attorney’s negligence, the client would have obtained a better result (a “better deal”), not merely that the deal later proved unfavorable.
- Causation and damages cannot rest on conjecture; the plaintiff must offer competent evidence supporting a reasonable probability that different, more favorable terms were realistically available and would have been agreed to by the counterparty.
- A malpractice plaintiff must prove damages with specificity, including the amount attributable to the alleged negligence rather than to other causes.
- Evidence that a client previously accepted substantially similar contract language may undermine claims that the drafting choice caused the complained-of loss.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because Gulfport OB-GYN did not provide evidence that Dr. Daigle would have accepted more restrictive terms or that different drafting would probably have changed the outcome, and it did not prove the amount of loss attributable to the alleged malpractice.


Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. v. Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, P.A., 283 So. 3d 676 (Miss. 2019)