Russo v. Griffin
Vermont Supreme Court
510 A.2d 436 (1986)
Joseph Russo turned over his paving business, J.A. Russo Paving, Inc. (Russo Paving) (plaintiff), to his sons Anthony (plaintiff) and Frank, who hired attorney H. Vaughn Griffin, Jr. and his firm (Griffin) (defendants) to incorporate the business. Years later, when Frank wanted to leave to buy a laundromat, the brothers met with Griffin to arrange Anthony's buy-out of Frank's share, but Griffin never advised including a covenant not to compete in the buy-out documents; three months later, Frank reentered the paving business in direct competition with Russo Paving. Anthony and Russo Paving sued for legal malpractice, arguing a non-compete would have prevented Frank's competing venture. At trial, plaintiffs' experts from the state's largest city testified Griffin's omission deviated from the statewide standard of care, while Griffin's experts, who practiced in the same local community, testified his conduct met the local standard; the trial court applied the locality rule and sided with Griffin, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Whether the appropriate standard of care to which a lawyer is held in the performance of professional services is that degree of care, skill, diligence, and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful, and prudent lawyer practicing in the state.