The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment in the case of Indy Auto Man, LLC, v. Keown & Kratz, LLC, and Dustin Stohler. Doctrine
The dispute involves the malpractice exposure of the law firm, Keown & Kratz that collaborated with a solo practitioner, Stohler. In a handshake agreement, Stohler agreed to work on some of the firm’s cases while also maintaining his own separate clients.
In exchange for Stohler’s services, the firm gave him rent-free office space, firm business cards, firm letterhead, and a firm email address. An announcement that Stohler joined the firm appeared in his college alumni newsletter. The firm also added Stohler to its malpractice insurance, but only to the extent that he handled clients of the firm.
Over time, Stohler’s performance was increasingly unsatisfactory, leading to an eventual discovery that Stohler had abandoned his work at the firm entirely to take a position with a collections firm. Indy Auto Man (“IAM”), one of Stohler’s independent clients filed a malpractice suit against Keown & Katz and Stohler claiming that Stohler had failed to properly handle its pending cases thereby subjecting IAM to default judgments. Service on Stohler has been unsuccessful and he has never appeared in this case.
The trial court granted Keown & Kratz summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed summary judgment, holding that there is, “at the very least,” a question of fact as whether Stohler was acting for the firm under the doctrine of apparent authority.
Read the opinion here.
