Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Simpson v. James

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
903 F.2d 372 (1990)


Facts

Sheila Simpson (plaintiff) hired attorney Ed Oliver to help sell a family-owned corporation after her husband’s death. When interested purchasers approached Oliver, he helped them form the Tide Creek corporation. Oliver acted as the sole attorney advising both parties to the sale and drafted the documents for transferring the company’s assets. The sale agreement provided for a $100,000 initial payment, with the balance due in later installments. As security, the transaction included liens against Tide Creek stock and the personal guarantees of the investors. Oliver continued to act as Simpson’s attorney in other matters after the sale. Five months after the sale, a fire destroyed Tide Creek’s inventory. A partner in Oliver’s firm, David James (defendant) helped Tide Creek recover $200,000 in insurance proceeds. Thereafter, Oliver left the firm. When Tide Creek defaulted on its first payment obligation, Simpson consulted with James. James acknowledged that the company was having financial problems and advised Simpson to restructure Tide Creek’s payment agreement. Simpson asked James what would happen in the event of a conflict between her interests and Tide Creek’s interests. James indicated that the firm would represent Simpson’s interests. Simpson later heard rumors about Tide Creek going into bankruptcy and initiated a meeting with James. James informed Simpson that he was representing Tide Creek and that she would need to find a new lawyer. After failing to secure any compensation from the bankrupt corporation or the individual investors, Simpson filed malpractice claims against James and the other partners of his law firm. At trial, a jury awarded Simpson $100,000 on each of two negligence claims. James and his co-defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Wisdom, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.