## Facts

- In January 1989, Charles A. Trobaugh was charged in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, with assault with intent to inflict serious injury, assault with a dangerous weapon, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- Patrick A. Sondag, then an assistant county attorney, signed the initial criminal complaints against Trobaugh.
- Sondag later left the county attorney’s office, became an assistant public defender in the same county, and represented Trobaugh in the same prosecution.
- Trobaugh accepted a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to displaying a dangerous weapon and felon in possession of a firearm, and served about eleven months in custody.
- Roughly six years later, Trobaugh’s 1989 conviction was used to enhance a federal drug sentence.
- In June 1997, Trobaugh learned through federal counsel that Sondag had both initiated and later defended the 1989 case; Trobaugh raised the conflict in postconviction litigation.
- After earlier postconviction proceedings failed on procedural grounds, Trobaugh ultimately obtained postconviction relief from the 1989 conviction based on the conflict issue.
- Trobaugh then pursued a legal-malpractice claim against Sondag (as a former state-employed public defender) under the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA); the State denied the administrative claim.

## Issues

1. For a legal-malpractice claim arising from negligent representation of a criminal defendant under the ITCA, does the claim accrue when the plaintiff discovers the alleged negligence/conflict, or when the plaintiff obtains postconviction relief from the conviction allegedly caused by the negligence?
2. Is a negligence-based legal-malpractice claim barred under the ITCA as the “functional equivalent” of excluded claims (such as misrepresentation or deceit)?

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the malpractice claim accrued when Trobaugh successfully obtained postconviction relief, not when he discovered the conflict in 1997.
- The court rejected the State’s argument that the claim was the functional equivalent of ITCA-excluded torts, characterizing it as a standard professional-negligence claim.

## Legal Principles

- In criminal-defense legal-malpractice actions under the ITCA, accrual occurs upon successful postconviction relief (or comparable relief) from the conviction allegedly resulting from the attorney’s negligence.
- Discovery of the alleged conflict or negligent act does not start the ITCA limitations period if the conviction has not yet been set aside.
- Conditioning accrual on postconviction relief avoids inconsistent adjudications and prevents damages and causation from remaining speculative while a conviction stands.
- A properly pleaded legal-malpractice negligence claim is not barred merely because the State characterizes it as analogous to excluded ITCA claims like misrepresentation or deceit.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant’s ITCA malpractice claim against state-employed defense counsel accrues when postconviction relief is obtained, making Trobaugh’s suit timely and not categorically barred as an excluded-tort equivalent; the dismissal was reversed and the case returned for further proceedings.


Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 2003)