§ 611.215

In Re the Welfare of J.B. · 2010 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kennedy v. Carlson · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Dziubak v. Mott · 1993 2 citations

503 N.W.2d 771 (1993) Richard P. DZIUBAK, Respondent, v. J. Thomas MOTT and James T. Hankes, Petitioners, Appellants. No. C7-91-2517. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 6, 1993. *772 Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., David T. Schultz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for appellants. Richard W. Johnson, Red Wing, for respondent. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc. TOMLJANOVICH, Justice. In 1962, the United States Supreme Court recognized the right to counsel as one of the safeguards necessary to insure fundamental human rights when it made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment the Sixth Amendment guarantees of the right to counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1962). [The assistance of counsel] is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty * * *. The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant *773 admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not `still be done.' Gideon, 372 U.S. at 343, 83 S.Ct. at 796 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1022, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). * * * * * * [R]eason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. Gideon, 335 U.S. at 344, 83 S.Ct. at 796. The Minnesota Legislature responded in 1965 by adopting legislation to create a system of state and district public defenders. Act of May 26, 1965, ch. 869, §§ 1-20, 1965 Minn.Laws 1631-38 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. §§ 611.14-611.21 (1992)).[1] In 1981 the legislature created the State Board of Public Defense. Act of June 1, 1981, ch. 356, § 360, 1981 Minn. Laws 1982-84 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 611.215 (1992)). Today we are asked to decide whether the state public defenders are immune from suit for malpractice. This appeal arises from respondent Richard P. Dziubak's complaint filed in Ramsey County district court against the petitioners, J. Thomas Mott and James T. Hankes, alleging ten counts of legal malpractice. Mott and Hankes were public defenders appointed to represent Dziubak against charges of second degree murder and first degree manslaughter in the death of Dziubak's mother.[2] Mott and Hankes moved for a dismissal based upon immunity from suit, or for summary judgment based upon collateral estoppel. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but ruled Dziubak was collaterally estopped from litigating whether Mott and Hankes were negligent for failure to discover the fatal levels of anti-depressants in decedent's blood. The other allegations of negligence were reserved for trial. The court of appeals affirmed. Dziubak v. Mott, 486 N.W.2d 837 (Minn.App.1992). The sole issue on appeal is whether public defenders are immune from suit for legal malpractice. Because we find there are sound public policy reasons favoring immunity, we reverse and hold that public defenders are immune from suit for legal malpractice.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.