## Facts

- Jon Riley Hays was convicted in a federal criminal prosecution in which Bryan Cave LLP and several of its lawyers represented him.
- Hays did not pursue a direct appeal; his later post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied, and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Hays then filed an Illinois common-law legal-malpractice action in Illinois state court, alleging negligent handling of his federal criminal defense.
- The defendants removed the malpractice case to federal district court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction because adjudication would require substantial analysis of federal criminal law and the statutes of conviction.
- The district court denied Hays’s motion to remand and dismissed the malpractice claim on the merits.
- Hays appealed, arguing the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore could not reach the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-law legal-malpractice claim arising from representation in a federal criminal case “arises under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, making it removable from state court.
2. Whether anticipated or necessary litigation of federal-law questions within the malpractice action is sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the malpractice claim did not arise under federal law.
- The court concluded removal was improper where the pleaded cause of action was Illinois common-law malpractice, even if resolving it would involve substantial consideration of federal criminal law.
- The court vacated the federal judgment on the merits and directed that the case be remanded to the Illinois state court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule: jurisdiction depends on the claim as pleaded by the plaintiff, not on federal defenses or the expected prominence of federal issues.
- A state-law claim is not removable merely because it originated in federal proceedings or because federal law will be analyzed in proving breach, causation, or damages.
- The “embedded federal question” basis for § 1331 jurisdiction is narrow; the mere presence of disputed federal-law questions within a state-law claim does not, without more, transform it into a claim arising under federal law.
- When a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed action, it must remand and may not enter a merits dismissal.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit ruled that an Illinois legal-malpractice action against defense counsel does not become a federal case solely because the alleged negligence occurred in a federal criminal prosecution or because federal statutes may be examined in the malpractice analysis; lacking § 1331 jurisdiction, the federal court had to remand rather than decide the merits.


Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP, 446 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2006)