Supreme Court sends malpractice suit to St. Charles County

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Jan. 29 that a legal-malpractice suit against the St. Louis law firm HeplerBroom must be moved to a different county. But the court left unresolved a larger question about the proper venue for such suits.

The underlying suit was brought by the Twillman family, who had planned to open a franchise of a hydraulic-equipment business in St. Charles County. After changing their minds, the Twillmans hired a partner with HeplerBroom to help them cancel the deal and recover their deposit.

Later, the Twillmans opened their own hydraulic business, prompting a suit from Pirtek USA, the company with whom they’d earlier signed the franchise agreement. A federal court in Florida, where Pirtek is based, enjoined the Twillmans’ business operations in St. Charles County and sent the case to arbitration, ultimately resulting in a settlement.

The Twillmans filed their legal-malpractice suit in St. Louis Circuit Court, where the law firm is based. HeplerBroom filed a motion to move the case to the circuit court in St. Charles County, where the family’s business would have been located. A St. Louis circuit judge denied the motion to transfer the venue.

At oral arguments in December, the parties disputed where the Twillmans injury occurred, which is generally how venue is determined. But in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court resolved the case on other grounds.

HeplerBroom had asked for the change in venue in a motion filed in October 2017, but the circuit court didn’t rule until the following May. Judge George W. Draper III, writing for the court, said a provision of the state’s venue statute, section 508.010, gave the court only 90 days to act. After that deadline passed, Draper said, the law firm’s motion had to be deemed granted.

A separate court rule that allows for discovery in venue determinations, Rule 51.045(b), imposes no time limit, and the Twillmans argued that the rule trumped the statute. But the Supreme Court “declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to create a conflict between these provisions that otherwise does not exist,” Draper wrote.

“It is evident the circuit court may comply with both the section and the rule while permitting parties to conduct discovery while litigating venue disputes,” Draper wrote. “Specifically, should the circuit court determine discovery is necessary to resolve a venue dispute, section 508.010.10 expressly allows the parties to waive the ninety-day time period in writing, hence alleviating any concern the circuit court would have to rule upon a motion to transfer prematurely.”

The case is State ex rel. HeplerBroom LLC v. Moriarty, SC97200.