## Facts

- Sixteen-year-old Billie Metcalfe was injured in a 1986 automobile collision, suffering significant physical injuries and hospitalization.
- Billie and her parents retained attorney Larry J. Waters to pursue a personal-injury lawsuit arising from the collision.
- Waters filed suit in 1987 against multiple defendants connected to the accident.
- On March 15, 1990, Waters took a nonsuit because he was unprepared for trial.
- Waters refiled on March 6, 1991, but failed to pay the filing fee and failed to properly issue summons.
- The refiled case was dismissed as to some defendants in December 1992 due to limitations, and dismissed as to remaining defendants on May 14, 1993 after Waters failed to appear for trial.
- After the dismissals, Waters misrepresented for months that the case was still pending and, when disclosure occurred, he did not candidly explain that dismissal resulted from his own failures and advised the case was not worth appealing.
- The Metcalfes sued for legal malpractice; the trial court directed a verdict for the Metcalfes on liability, and a jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed liability but reversed punitive damages and ordered a new trial on compensatory damages as excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages are available in a Tennessee legal malpractice action and under what standard of proof.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the attorney’s conduct was intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless.
3. Whether punitive damages may be based on post-malpractice concealment and misrepresentations that were not contemporaneous with the negligent legal work.
4. Whether reinstating punitive damages affects the remand for a new trial on compensatory damages.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and reinstated the jury’s punitive-damages verdict.
- The court held punitive damages may be awarded in legal malpractice actions when Hodges-level culpability (intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct) is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court held the evidence supported punitive damages, given repeated litigation failures coupled with deliberate deception about the case’s dismissal.
- The court rejected any requirement that concealment or lying must be contemporaneous with the underlying malpractice to establish punitive-damages liability.
- The court left intact the remand for a new trial solely on compensatory damages due to the excessive compensatory award.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages may be awarded in legal malpractice claims if intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- Conduct supporting punitive-damages liability is not limited to the negligent legal work itself; deliberate post-malpractice concealment and misrepresentations to clients may establish the required culpability.
- Appellate review may treat punitive-damages liability as separable from the amount of compensatory damages, allowing reinstatement of punitive damages while ordering a new trial on compensatory damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that punitive damages are available in Tennessee legal malpractice actions upon clear and convincing proof of intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct, and it reinstated the jury’s punitive award based on an attorney’s pattern of serious litigation failures and subsequent deception, while remanding only for a new trial on compensatory damages.


Metcalfe v. Waters, 970 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. 1998)