Torts – Misrepresentation by Omission

Where a law firm does not challenge the jury’s findings that it intentionally omitted material facts regarding an attorney’s non-equity membership in a law firm and his compensation and that it intended that the attorney rely on those omissions; and the attorney testified that in reliance on the law firm’s representations, the attorney substantially increased his efforts to maximize recoveries in  pending class actions, made significant personal sacrifices to do so, and turned down another job opportunity; we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of reliance for the purpose of the attorney’s misrepresentation-by-omission claim and that the District Court appropriately allowed benefit-of-the-bargain damage because the amount that the attorney was deprived by the law firm’s omissions is easily calculated, while the calculation of out-of-pocket damages would be speculative.

We also conclude that the District Court did not err by granting JMOL dismissing the attorney’s punitive-damages claim.

Affirmed.

A09-1757 Williams v. Heins, Mills & Olson, PLC (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text