It was a split decision in the Court’s Thursday opinion in Waggoner v. Williamson. In the decision a divided court reversed a grant of summary judgment in a malpractice case against prominent plaintiff’s lawyer Ed Williamson and remanded the case for a jury trial.

The plaintiff sued his former attorneys after netting nearly $1.5 million in a 2001 fen phen settlement. The plaintiff claims to have not known that his case was part of an aggregate settlement of $73.5 million–apparently on behalf of 45 clients. Plaintiff’s portion of the aggregate settlement was $3 million.

The majority reasoned that there was a fact question as to adequate disclosure under plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. In the majority were Justices Carlson, Waller, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar.

Justice Pierce wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justices Chandler and Waller (in part). Justice Kitchens wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Graves.

None of the opinions state what many lawyers who read this opinion are thinking. The plaintiff was lucky to recover $3 million and net $1.5 million for injuries that left him well enough to give a deposition in his case against his lawyers. The settlement value of fen phen cases and many other types of cases in Mississippi declined substantially shortly after the plaintiff settled this case. This fact rightfully did not factor into the court’s analysis. But perhaps it should have factored into plaintiff’s decision to sue his former lawyers.