Can law firms avoid malpractice claims by asserting governmental immunity defenses? Sandberg v. Lehman Explained

In Sandberg v. Lehman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a law firm could escape malpractice liability by arguing that a governmental entity would have been immune from suit under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.

Background and Facts

Albert Sandberg was injured when he fell into an unguarded concrete pit at the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Facility. He hired Lehman, Jensen & Donahue to represent him in a personal injury action. The firm sued Salt Lake County and obtained a $100,000 settlement but failed to join Salt Lake City as a defendant before the statute of limitations expired. Salt Lake City had designed and co-operated the facility where Sandberg was injured. Sandberg then sued Lehman for legal malpractice, alleging the firm negligently failed to join Salt Lake City.

Key Legal Issues

The case turned on whether Salt Lake City would have been entitled to discretionary function immunity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. To prove causation in a malpractice case, a plaintiff must show that “absent the attorney’s negligence, the underlying suit would have been successful.” Lehman argued that even if they had sued Salt Lake City, the claim would have failed due to governmental immunity for the city’s design decisions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the four-part Little test to determine whether discretionary function immunity applied. The analysis focused on whether the decision to omit safety features at the pit involved “basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise” at the policy-making level. The court found that Lehman failed to prove this third prong, noting that the defendant bears the burden of showing “a conscious balancing of risks and advantages took place” at the policy level. Evidence showed that safety decisions were made at the operational level by engineers rather than through policy-level deliberation by governing bodies.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that discretionary function immunity is “a distinct and limited form of immunity” that requires specific proof of policy-level decision-making. Law firms cannot simply assert that governmental immunity would have barred a claim without demonstrating that the challenged acts involved conscious policy evaluation rather than routine operational decisions. The court distinguished between policy-making functions entitled to immunity and operational-level choices that remain subject to liability.