Utah Court of Appeals
Can a client's knowing decision break causation in Utah legal malpractice cases? Breton v. Clyde Snow & Sessions Explained
Summary
Neil Breton, a cotrustee, sued his law firm for malpractice after three beneficiaries filed suit against him. Breton claimed the firm’s ineffective drafting of releases and failure to advise against partial distribution caused the litigation. The district court granted summary judgment for the law firm, finding Breton’s decision to distribute funds to twelve beneficiaries while knowing three others had not signed releases was an intervening cause.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue in legal malpractice litigation in Breton v. Clyde Snow & Sessions: when does a client’s informed decision constitute an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation, even when attorney negligence may have occurred?
Background and Facts
Neil Breton, serving as cotrustee of a family trust, retained Clyde Snow & Sessions to create an “all or nothing” settlement plan for ongoing family disputes. The plan required all fifteen beneficiaries to sign releases in exchange for $24,000 payments. However, only twelve beneficiaries signed the releases, while three brothers (the Slater Brothers) indicated they would sign but never did. Despite knowing that the Slater Brothers had not signed, Breton distributed $24,000 to each of the twelve signing beneficiaries in February 2005. The Slater Brothers later sued in California, and that lawsuit settled in 2009.
Key Legal Issues
Breton sued his attorneys for legal malpractice and breach of contract, arguing they ineffectively drafted the releases and failed to advise him not to distribute funds before obtaining all signatures. The central issue was whether causation existed—specifically, whether Breton’s decision to distribute funds despite knowing the risks constituted an intervening cause that broke the causal chain between any attorney negligence and the resulting harm.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied established Utah precedent that causation issues can be resolved on summary judgment when facts are undisputed and reasonable persons could not disagree about the application of legal standards. The court found Breton’s “economic incentive” theory legally unsupported and identified a logical fallacy in his reasoning. Critically, the court determined that Breton’s knowing decision to distribute funds while aware that unsigned beneficiaries “would be free to sue” him constituted an intervening cause that broke any causal connection to the attorneys’ alleged negligence.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates that detailed documentation of client knowledge and decision-making is crucial in malpractice defense. When clients proceed with actions despite understanding the risks, their informed choices may constitute intervening causes even if attorney negligence occurred. The ruling also emphasizes that causation theories must have solid legal foundations—speculative “economic incentive” arguments without legal support will not survive summary judgment challenges.
Case Details
Case Name
Breton v. Clyde Snow & Sessions
Citation
2013 UT App 65
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110996-CA
Date Decided
March 14, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A client’s decision to distribute trust funds while knowing that not all beneficiaries had signed releases constituted an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation in a legal malpractice action against the drafting attorneys.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings
Practice Tip
Document client knowledge of risks and consequences through detailed communications to establish potential intervening causation defenses in malpractice actions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.