Attorney Immunity Defense

In a recent legal case, the defendant law firm Schiff Hardin, L.L.P., fiercely contested the rejection of its motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Ironshore Europe DAC. Ironshore alleged that Schiff Hardin fabricated and concealed information during the reporting on a litigation case involving their client, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. The crucial legal question at hand was whether Schiff Hardin was entitled to attorney immunity against Ironshore’s claim of negligent misrepresentation. This blog post delves into the background, dissects the arguments made, and scrutinizes the court’s decision in this case.


The lawsuit originated from a personal injury case filed by Nicole and Cameron Hinson against Dorel, accusing them of negligence in the design of a car seat that inflicted injuries on their child. Dorel was insured by Ironshore, and Schiff Hardin represented Dorel in the litigation. Ironshore alleged that Schiff Hardin fabricated statements and suppressed crucial information during the reporting of the case. Ironshore argued that it fell victim to these misrepresentations and would have settled for a lesser amount had it possessed the facts. Schiff Hardin, in defense, vehemently asserted attorney immunity.

Attorney Immunity from Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

The crux of this case revolved around whether attorney immunity, which generally shields lawyers from civil liability to non-clients for actions performed during the representation of a client, encompassed claims of negligent misrepresentation. Although the Supreme Court of Texas had not explicitly tackled this question, prior decisions indicated that attorney immunity applied to conduct within the scope of representation. The court scrutinized the Cantey Hanger and Youngkin cases, where attorney immunity stood strong for conduct carried out as part of the attorney’s obligations to the client, even in cases involving intentional misrepresentations. Based on this analysis, the court surmised that attorney immunity would likely extend to negligent misrepresentation claims as well.

Analysis of Schiff Hardin’s Conduct

The court meticulously examined the factual allegations in Ironshore’s complaint and discovered that all the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were intertwined with Schiff Hardin’s representation of Dorel in the Hinson litigation. The court underscored that attorney immunity applies to actions taken in connection with representing a client in litigation, including the provision of opinions, reporting on the case’s status, and deliberations on settlement discussions. While Ironshore portrayed the conduct as wrongful, the court fixated on the overall nature of the conduct involved and concluded that it fell within the purview of Schiff Hardin’s responsibilities as Dorel’s legal representative. Consequently, the court determined that Schiff Hardin was entitled to attorney immunity, and the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The court reversed the denial and rendered judgment in favor of Schiff Hardin, dismissing Ironshore’s complaint.


In the case of Ironshore Europe DAC v. Schiff Hardin, L.L.P., the court ruled decisively in favor of the defendant law firm, asserting that attorney immunity shielded Schiff Hardin from Ironshore’s claim of negligent misrepresentation. The decision underscored the paramount importance of attorney immunity in safeguarding lawyers from civil liability while discharging their duties on behalf of their clients.

The Allied Outsourcing is a renowned company that excels in bestowing legal services to diverse clients. With their squad of seasoned attorneys and legal professionals, they proffer a vast array of legal solutions to cater to the distinct needs of their clients. Whether it’s drafting and scrutinizing contracts, conducting legal research, or supporting litigation, The Allied Outsourcing ensures that their clients receive top-notch and efficient legal services, enabling them to concentrate on their core business activities while enjoying the assurance that their legal matters are being handled by experts.

One of the pivotal benefits of electing The Allied Outsourcing for legal services is their unwavering commitment to confidentiality and privacy. They grasp the delicate nature of legal affairs and prioritize the safeguarding of their client’s information. Through stringent security protocols and adherence to legal ethics, The Allied Outsourcing upholds the utmost standards of confidentiality, guaranteeing that client data and case particulars are kept secure and confidential. This degree of professionalism and devotion renders The Allied Outsourcing a trusted ally for businesses and individuals seeking reliable legal support.

Leave a Comment