Chapman v. Bearfield
Tennessee Supreme Court
207 S.W.3d 736 (2006)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Cathy Chapman and other Chapman family members (the Chapmans) (plaintiff) retained Rick Bearfield (defendant) to represent them in a medical-malpractice action. The Chapmans became dissatisfied with Bearfield’s representation and filed a legal-malpractice action against him. Bearfield maintained in the affidavit supporting his motion for summary judgment that he had not committed malpractice, citing as authority the professional standard of care applicable to attorneys in the upper East Tennessee area. The Chapmans submitted the affidavit of a medical-malpractice attorney who asserted that he was familiar with the standard of care for medical-malpractice attorneys in Tennessee and that Bearfield’s representation of the Chapmans fell below the standard of what a reasonable attorney under similar circumstances would have done. The trial court granted summary judgment to Bearfield because the affidavit submitted by the Chapmans did not meet the locality rule. The court of appeals vacated the grant of summary judgment. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
