No Emotional Distress Damages For Legal Malpractice

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed an award of damages for emotional distress in a legal malpractice case.

The court did not rule out the possibility of such damages but found an insufficient basis here:

…we conclude that the trial courterred in awarding damages for plaintiff’s emotional distress in thiscase.  Assuming without deciding that Vermont law follows the modern trendof allowing damages under certain circumstances for serious emotional distressin legal malpractice claims and that the evidence in this case could support afinding of sufficiently serious emotional anguish to support such a claim, we conclude that the subject ofdefendant’s representation of plaintiff was not of such a personal andemotional nature that it would support an exception to the general ruledisallowing recovery of emotional distress damages in the absence of eitherphysical impact or substantial bodily injury or sickness.  In many ways,this case is less compelling than the loss-of-home cases cited above; plaintiffhere did not lose his home but, rather, faced a threatened loss of his homewhich he ultimately avoided by settling the case.  We do not mean tosuggest that the anxiety associated with the threatened loss of one’s homecannot be profound.  But in contrast to the loss of liberty or one’schild—very significant losses for which there may be no adequate measure ofpecuniary damages, and in connection with which serious emotional distress canbe readily expected—what plaintiff ultimately lost in this case wasmoney.  We consider plaintiff’s losses in this case to be economic, andreverse the trial court’s award of emotional distress damages to plaintiff.

(Mike Frisch)