Mississippi: Lawyer guilty of alienation of affection, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress

In In re Pierce v. Cook, 992 So. 2d 612; (Miss. 2008), the Mississippi Rankin County Circuit Court found in favor of the plaintiff, Ernest Allen Cook, and awarded him $1,500,000 in damages. The court found the defendant, Ronald Henry Pierce guilty of alienation of affection, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after.
In the fall of 1997 Ernest Allen Cook Sr., wife Kathleen Susan Shorkey Cook, and minor son Ernest Allen Cook Jr., appointed attorney Ronald Henry Price to represent them in a medical mal-practice suit. In June 2003, Cook moved to California to pursue a career in the film industry. His wife and children stayed at their home in Mississippi. Cook frequently visited but despite the efforts Cook and Kathleen separated and ceased cohabitation in September 2000. Pierce was still representing them on the medical mal-practice case at this time. Around September 30, 2000, Pierce began an intimate relationship with Kathleen. October 2000 is when Cook became aware of this relationship and terminated Pierce as his attorney. June 3, 2002 Cook was granted a divorce from Kathleen. Soon after, Kathleen and Pierce were married and had a child together.
December 23, 2002, Cook filed a complaint against Pierce in the Circuit Court of Rankin County. He was accusing Pierce of alienation of affection, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This was based on Pierce’s affair with Kathleen. June 20-23, 2006, the trial was held in Rankin County Circuit Court, presiding was Judge Samac S. Richardson. The Jury decided in Cook’s favor, against Pierce, and entered a judgment awarded to Cook in the amount of $1,500,000, June 7, 2006. Pierce went on to file a motion on September 27, 2006 for a new trial. The court denied it.
On October 25, 2006, Pierce appealed the trial court’s decision. In the matter of breach of contract, Pierce claimed that Cook needed to have sufficient testimony to prove malpractice. Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So. 2d 626, 635 (Miss. 1987). However, Cook stated he did not sue for malpractice but breach of fiduciary duty owed to him. It was found that Pierce had committed malpractice but in Byrd, 933 So. 899, 904 (Miss. 2006), there were some exceptions laid out for expert testimony. “The attorney who finds himself the defendant in a legal malpractice case, however, has a judge and the trial attorneys who are already experts.” So, Cook did not need expert testimony, he already had experts involved in the case. Another good point to bring up is that ordinary jurors have a normal level of intelligence and lay expertise to determine if an attorney has an affair with his clients husband is a breach of duty, and expert testimony would not lend guidance on this situation. The court found this issue without merit.

Pierce also appealed stating that Cook did not follow the statute of limitations. According to Smith v. Sneed, 638 So. 2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 1994), in a continuing tort the statute of limitations does not begin until the date of the last injury. Cook’s divorce was granted June 3, 2002 and he filed the claim on December 23, 2002, so it was with-in the one year statute of limitation. Stevens v Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993) it was decided that the continuing tort doctrine must have continuing incidences occurring after the initial incident. This is the case for Cook. Pierce took Kathleen on a trip to New Orleans, and they had sexual relations. Pierce flaunted his involvement with Kathleen in a local restraint in Jackson. There is also a tape of Pierce coaching Kathleen of what to say to Cook. Pierce called Cook on his Birthday to apologize for the situation with Kathleen. The Trail Court did not find err in the statute of limitations because of these events, until the divorce, and Cook did file with-in the statute of limitation. For these reasons the court found this issue to be without merit also.
“For the reasons stated in the Rankin County Circuit Court judgment entered consistent with the jury verdict against Ronald Henry Price and in favor of Ernest Allen Cook Sr., in the amount of $1,500,000, is affirmed.