$800,000 Judgment Against Lawyer Is Upheld

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  The state Supreme Court on Thursday let stand an unusual $800,000 damage award for legal malpractice by an attorney who represented a San Diego social worker wrongly convicted of killing his wife.

The court, without dissent, issued a brief order refusing to review a ruling last September by a state Court of Appeal that upheld claims by Chester A. Holliday for emotional distress and other injury as the result of inadequate representation by lawyer Otis L. Jones.

Holliday was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the strangulation death of his wife, Rose, in March, 1980. But a state appeals court reversed the conviction in 1984, finding Jones’ representation of Holliday had been “incompetent and inept.�

The appellate court, noting that the evidence against Holliday was entirely circumstantial, cited Jones’ unfamiliarity with basic courtroom tactics, his failure to locate key defense witnesses and his bungled cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Later, Holliday was acquitted at a retrial.

In his subsequent civil suit against Jones and his law partner, Holliday sought damages for negligence and infliction of emotional distress.

According to legal documents, Holliday, after he was convicted, was handcuffed in front of family members and led away to jail, where he spent 70 days behind bars before being released on bail.

Also according to the documents, he was forced to share a cell with an inmate known as “Monster�--so named because of the inmate’s desire for jailhouse sex--and, later, was incarcerated with a paranoid schizophrenic who needed daily medication to avoid becoming violent.

Holliday also claimed that, because of lack of information from Jones, he had incorrectly believed he might be eligible for the death penalty until he went to the jail law library to consult the state penal code.

Attorneys for Jones did not contest the appellate court’s action last September upholding the award against the lawyer. But they did ask the high court to bar the ruling from being used as a precedent in other cases because of the adverse and potentially far-reaching effect it might have on the legal profession.

The justices, however, refused that request in Thursday’s order.

Jones’ lawyers warned that the Court of Appeal decision could force an increase in the cost of malpractice insurance for the legal profession and encourage disgruntled defendants to file civil suits without merit against their attorneys.

“This has been a very unfortunate experience for everybody,� said Barry R. Levy, an attorney representing Jones. “Mr. Jones felt very strongly he had not done anything wrong, but he wanted to see this thing end. . . . Unfortunately, the court has chosen to leave the ruling on the books.�

In his civil suit, Holliday was first awarded $1.1 million by a Superior Court judge. The state Court of Appeal trimmed the award to $800,000--including $400,000 for emotional distress--but rejected Jones’ attack on the bulk of Holliday’s legal claims.