Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Washington legal malpractice claims can arise when an attorney misses important deadlines, fails to comply with court orders, or allows a client’s lawsuit to be dismissed. But what happens when the client does not first ask the court to reopen the original case? Does that prevent the client from suing the attorney for malpractice?

In Minor v. Kimball, No. 88718-1-I, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, addressed that question in a published opinion originally filed July 27, 2026.

The court held that a former client’s failure to file a motion under Civil Rule 60(b) to vacate an earlier dismissal does not automatically prevent a legal malpractice lawsuit from proceeding.

The decision is significant because it distinguishes an unfavorable result caused by judicial error from one potentially caused by an attorney’s own negligence.

Importantly, the appellate court did not find that the attorneys committed malpractice. It ruled that the trial court had improperly dismissed the claims and that further proceedings were necessary.

Geoff Minor and his business, Minor Enterprises, LLC, doing business as The Metal Shop Gold & Silver, hired attorney Mark Kimball’s law firm, MDK Law, in July 2023.

The firm was retained to handle a dispute involving Minor’s landlord and property manager.

After reviewing lease documents and preparing legal filings, MDK Law filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court on January 12, 2024.

The firm initially billed more than $21,000 for its services but wrote off a substantial portion, ultimately collecting $8,400 from Minor.

The Attorney-Client Relationship Deteriorated

In February 2024, Minor asked the firm to pause service of the lawsuit so the parties could discuss how to proceed.

Although the firm agreed to pause service, one defendant had already been served.

The relationship continued to deteriorate, and Minor began considering replacement counsel.

In May 2024, an MDK Law attorney explained that the firm intended to remain counsel of record until Minor found another attorney. The attorney also explained that Minor’s business could not represent itself in court without counsel.

Minor agreed to look for replacement representation.

However, no replacement attorney appeared before the underlying lawsuit encountered serious procedural problems.

Attorneys Failed to Respond to Court Deadlines and Discovery Requests

According to the appellate opinion, opposing counsel repeatedly attempted to communicate with MDK Law between July and September 2024.

Those communications concerned discovery obligations, the court’s case schedule, and requests to arrange a discovery conference.

The opinion describes several failures by the law firm, including:

  • Failing to respond to discovery requests.
  • Ignoring repeated emails and telephone calls from opposing counsel.
  • Declining an invitation to a CR 26(i) discovery conference.
  • Failing to respond to motions filed by the opposing party.
  • Failing to comply with court orders requiring discovery responses.
  • Failing to appear at a scheduled show-cause hearing.

The court ultimately imposed serious consequences.

The Original Lawsuit Was Dismissed With Prejudice

On November 7, 2024, King County Superior Court dismissed Minor’s landlord lawsuit with prejudice as a sanction for failing to prosecute the case and failing to follow the court’s scheduling order.

The court also awarded the opposing party $2,138.50 in costs associated with its motions.

A dismissal with prejudice generally prevents a plaintiff from bringing the same claims again.

According to the appellate opinion, MDK Law did not notify Minor of the dismissal.

Minor instead learned about it from a third party in February 2025.

He filed a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against Kimball and MDK Law on March 18, 2025.

Why the Trial Court Dismissed the Malpractice Case

MDK Law argued that Minor could not prove its alleged negligence caused his damages because he had not first sought relief from the original dismissal.

Specifically, Minor had not filed a motion under Washington Civil Rule 60(b), which permits courts to relieve parties from certain judgments or orders under specified circumstances.

The law firm relied on Paradise Orchards General Partnership v. Fearing, 122 Wn. App. 507 (2004).

The trial court accepted that argument and granted summary judgment in favor of MDK Law.

It concluded that Minor’s failure to seek relief from the underlying dismissal prevented him from proving that the law firm’s conduct caused his alleged damages.

Minor appealed.

The Washington Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s interpretation of Paradise Orchards.

The appellate court explained that the earlier decision did not establish a blanket rule requiring every malpractice plaintiff to challenge an unfavorable judgment before suing an attorney.

Why Paradise Orchards Did Not Control the Case

In Paradise Orchards, the client sued its attorney after an unfavorable ruling in a real estate dispute.

The reviewing court determined that the attorney had not breached the applicable standard of care. Instead, the underlying trial court had made an erroneous legal ruling that the client did not challenge.

Because the attorney had not been negligent, the client could not establish that attorney malpractice caused its loss.

The circumstances in Minor were different.

The appellate court identified evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that MDK Law breached the applicable standard of care.

That evidence included the firm’s failure to respond to opposing counsel, comply with court orders, and attend a scheduled hearing.

Unlike Paradise Orchards, the record did not establish that the unfavorable result was attributable solely to judicial error.

The appellate court therefore concluded that the trial court had improperly relied on Paradise Orchards to dismiss Minor’s claims.

Is a CR 60(b) Motion Required Before Filing a Malpractice Lawsuit?

Not automatically.

The Court of Appeals explained that Paradise Orchards does not impose a categorical requirement that a former client first move to vacate the underlying judgment under CR 60(b).

Whether a client should seek relief from an earlier judgment may still matter to issues such as causation or mitigation of damages.

However, the absence of such a motion does not, by itself, establish that the attorney cannot be liable.

The court expressly left certain defenses for consideration on remand.

The appellate court reiterated the four elements of a Washington legal malpractice claim.

A plaintiff generally must establish:

  1. An attorney-client relationship: The relationship created a duty of care.
  2. A breach of duty: The attorney committed an act or omission that violated the applicable standard of care.
  3. Damages: The client suffered a legally recognizable injury.
  4. Proximate causation: The attorney’s breach caused the client’s damages.

The opinion cited Piris v. Kitching, 185 Wn.2d 856 (2016), and other Washington decisions addressing these requirements.

Proving That the Client Would Have Fared Better

Legal malpractice cases arising from litigation often require the former client to demonstrate that the underlying case would have produced a more favorable outcome but for the attorney’s negligence.

This is sometimes described as proving the case within the case.

The inquiry is not limited to whether an attorney made a mistake.

The plaintiff must also establish that the mistake caused a compensable loss.

In Minor, the appellate court concluded that factual disputes concerning the firm’s conduct and causation prevented summary judgment in the firm’s favor on the grounds the trial court had adopted.

Can Both Attorney Negligence and Judicial Error Cause Harm?

Yes, depending on the circumstances.

MDK Law argued that the judge in the original landlord dispute should not have dismissed the case with prejudice.

The firm relied in part on CR 41(b)(1), which addresses dismissal for want of prosecution.

The Court of Appeals noted that the original dismissal also rested on failure to comply with the case schedule, not merely lack of prosecution.

The court therefore rejected the argument that the dismissal was necessarily erroneous under CR 41(b)(1).

It also explained that, even assuming the judge had made an error, that would not automatically eliminate the possibility that the attorneys’ conduct contributed to the injury.

Washington law recognizes that more than one cause can contribute to a person’s damages.

That principle prevented the firm from obtaining summary judgment simply by pointing to the possibility of judicial error.

Did the Court Find Mark Kimball or MDK Law Liable?

No.

The appellate court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Minor’s malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

It also vacated the trial court’s denial of Minor’s competing motion for partial summary judgment because that ruling relied on the same erroneous causation analysis.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The appellate court did not determine:

  • Whether MDK Law ultimately breached its professional duties.
  • Whether any breach caused Minor’s claimed losses.
  • Whether Minor would have prevailed or obtained a better outcome in the landlord lawsuit.
  • Whether the defendants could establish defenses involving causation or mitigation of damages.
  • Whether Minor was entitled to damages or disgorgement of attorney fees.

Those questions remained unresolved.

The decision therefore should not be described as a final malpractice verdict against the law firm.

Why This Decision Matters for Washington Clients

The Minor decision addresses a situation that can arise when a client discovers that an attorney failed to manage an active lawsuit.

An attorney’s failure to respond to discovery requests or court orders can have serious consequences for a client’s legal rights.

The case also clarifies that an adverse judgment does not necessarily insulate an attorney from malpractice liability simply because the client did not attempt to reopen the original case.

What Should Clients Do After Discovering a Dismissed Lawsuit?

A person who learns that a lawsuit has been dismissed unexpectedly should promptly obtain copies of the court docket, relevant orders, and communications with counsel.

It may be important to determine whether relief from the judgment remains available, whether an appeal is possible, and whether the circumstances support a separate claim against an attorney.

Deadlines can be significant, and the available options depend on the procedural history and facts.

The Minor decision does not mean that clients can disregard opportunities to reduce their losses. Rather, it means that failure to file a CR 60(b) motion is not an automatic bar to a malpractice action.

Contact Blanford Law

Minor v. Kimball illustrates how Washington courts examine attorney negligence, causation, and the consequences of missed litigation obligations.

A former client may have legal options after an attorney’s conduct contributes to an unfavorable result, but proving malpractice requires more than showing that the original case was lost.

Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.

Additional Resources

Washington Court Rules

Washington Civil Rule 60 — Relief From Judgment or Order

Explains the circumstances under which a Washington superior court may grant relief from a judgment or order, including the CR 60(b) procedure discussed in Minor.

Washington Civil Rule 41 — Dismissal of Actions

Addresses voluntary and involuntary dismissals, including dismissal for want of prosecution, which was discussed in the appellate opinion.

Washington HOA Fee Disputes: Court Orders Money Judgment

Discusses a Washington appellate decision involving judicial remedies and the distinction between establishing a legal right and obtaining meaningful relief.

Washington Wage Lien Requirements: Court Rejects Defective Class-Action Liens

Explains a Washington appellate decision addressing statutory enforcement requirements and the importance of complying with procedural rules.

The Blanford Law article URLs above follow previously drafted SEO slugs and have not been verified as published pages.

This article provides general information about Washington law and does not constitute legal advice. Individual circumstances and applicable deadlines may affect available legal remedies.