WPCC ȮŽ2'Th=s2{uIpt:(%t,WOkw~.MJS㲻_4Jm #<#  ryy gJ`5zērzN#̮myD$ZvhYJ1;ޯ߾ojOWJd1vN^?jQ:*֮<+=G-P@AB 엻ni 6r{NlSF=5‘GRf 78Ldh8uW0f溋fqg9%LӪQ] X|H[t`H Eۑ@ D܆/!q~Eb},\r! AdLE6^YA~*RD r %<^ B 0NUNw$ 4( < zK   m # 0Dq  { AZN'))E 0U 02 0 0 0 0R 0 0 0Y 0 0 0 0C 0 0 08 0 0h 0 0 0! 05" 0"b# 0# 0)$ 0$ 0S% 0% 0& 0M' 0> ( 0I( 0A) 0#* 0+ 0+ 0, 0- 0e. 027/ 0i/ 0:e0 0Y0 0_0 0 W1 0a2 03 B*5 D/6 0B6 D/H8 0w8 06E9 0{9 0:: 0^: 0<; 1eW; 0; AM< 0N<U6B= Bx=U>= 0= D3w> D-> 0K>U*"? ASL?? 0e@ 0D A AMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMA 1uA 72mB 0cBvv-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-b014c13|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 40500(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 KELLUM P.J.Nidiffer CrimTrant CBLCowdenSovranDownenMcCarley OmerCarvellinartfullypost postSepulvedaStrickland COABispham  R$      1    _ԀInrelevantpart,Rule12.02providesthatif, onamotionassertingthedefensenumbered(6)todismissfor  failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcluded t bythecourt,themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule56,andall 8 partiesshallbegivenreasonableopportunitytopresentallmaterialmadepertinenttosuchamotionbyRule56. L ̀*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  - -(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  G)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2$ !.8mdd8         0  X[ZA<< c(O$<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3l$ !.8mdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3l$ !.8mdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)oi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !.8mdd8     _  m8YXXdd8  @ mINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#m #Ԉ &   SubmittedonBriefsNovember2,2002Session L XYXm #mXXY #CHARLESMONTAGUEv.MICHAELD.KELLUMXYXm   6 @@#mXXYv#XYXm AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWashingtonCounty  6 @@No.7877JeanA.Stanley,Judge  " FILEDNOVEMBER22,_2002_   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201733COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<h` A i     ThislegalmalpracticeclaimarisesfromthefilingbyattorneyMichaelD._Kellum_Ԁ( Defendant)of P anunverifiedpostconvictionpetitiononbehalfofCharlesMontague( Plaintiff).Thepost < convictionpetitionwasdismissedbytheCriminalCourtonthemeritsandbecauseitwasnot (x verified.WevacatedapreviousgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoDefendanttoallowPlaintifftimeto d conductdiscovery.Whileonremandandduringdiscovery,theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmed P thedismissalofPlaintiffspostconvictionproceedingforthesolereasonthatthepetitionwas < unverified.Thereafter,theTrialCourtagaindismissedthislawsuitafterconcluding,interalia, ( Plaintiffhadsufferednodamages.Wevacateandremand.   @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe  @A A CircuitCourtVacated;CaseRemanded  t D.Michael_Swiney_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,P.J., 8!  andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. $"t! CharlesMontague,proseAppellant,MountainCity,Tennessee. $8 $ JamesA.Nidiffer,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheAppelleeMichaelD._Kellum_. '"'   (#( _@66' OPINION  @%Background      ` Thisisthesecondoccasionwehavehadtheopportunitytoreviewthedismissalof ` Plaintiffslegalmalpracticeclaim.Weaddressedthefactsinouropinioninthefirstappeal,from L  whichwequoteasfollows: 8  8  8`    ThisappealresultsfromtheTrialCourt'sgrantingsummary  ` judgmenttoDefendant.Plaintiff,whoisincarcerated,fileda  L  ComplaintalleginglegalmalpracticestemmingfromDefendant's  8  representationofhiminapost-convictionproceeding.Plaintiff $  allegesanumberofbasesforhisclaim,includingthatDefendant,   whowascourt-appointed,failedtofollowthemandateofTenn.Code   Ann.40-30-204(e),whichrequiresthatapost-convictionpetition   oramendedpetitionbeverifiedunderoath.BythetimeDefendant   wasappointedascounsel,Plaintiff,actingprose,hadfileda p post-convictionpetitionwhichdidnotcomplywithTenn.CodeAnn. \ 40-30-204(e),becauseitwasnotproperlyverifiedunderoath. H DefendantfiledanAmendedPetition("AmendedPetition")onbehalf 4 ofPlaintiffwhichalsofailedtocomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.  p 40-30-204(e),becauseitwasnotverifiedunderoath. \` x` x 8  8`    Atthepost-convictionhearing,theCriminalCourtfor 4 WashingtonCounty,despitetheAmendedPetition'slackofstatutory   compliance,consideredthegroundsraisedintheAmendedPetition   anddismissedPlaintiff'spost-convictionclaim.InitsOrder,the  CriminalCourtheldthattheAmendedPetitiondidnotcomplywith  Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-204,becauseitwasnotverifiedunderoath  anddidnotstatefactstosupportallegationsthatwouldrequiresetting l thematterforhearing.TheCriminalCourtheldthatthepetitionwas X  withoutmerit.D!` x` x 8  8`    PlaintifffiledhislegalmalpracticeComplaintagainst #l! DefendantinJanuary2000.PlaintiffservedDefendantwithRequests $X" forAdmissioninApril2000.Afewdayslater,Defendantfiledhis $D # MotiontoDismissbaseduponTenn.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).Plaintiff %0!$ thenservedDefendantwithapleadingcaptioned"Motionfor &"% ProductionofDocuments"whichwasessentiallyaTenn.R.Civ.P. '#& 34RequestforProductionofDocuments.Next,Plaintifffileda (#' MotionforExtensionofTimetorespondtoDefendant'sMotionto )$( Dismiss.Althoughinartfullydrafted,Plaintiffoutlinedtheas-yet |*%) unanswereddiscoveryrequestsasthebasisofhismotion....h+&*` x` x Ї8  8`    OnthedatethattheMotiontoDismisswassetforhearing,  DefendantfiledaMotionforExtensionofTimetorespondto  Plaintiff'sdiscoveryrequests,askingthatthetimebeextendeduntil  aftertheTrialCourtdecidedhisMotiontoDismiss.Defendant's t responsetotheRequestsforAdmissionwasdueafewdayslater. ` TheTrialCourtgrantedDefendant'sMotionforExtensionofTime, L  orderingthatPlaintiff'sdiscoverywasstayeduntilaftertheTrial 8  CourtdecidedDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss.Onthesamedate,the $ t TrialCourttookunderadvisementDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss.  ` InspiteoftheTrialCourt'sorderstayingPlaintiff'sdiscovery,  L  Defendant,however,respondedtoPlaintiff'sRequestforProduction  8  ofDocumentsinJuly2000.TheRequestsforAdmissionremained $  unansweredbyDefendant. ` x` x 8  8`    BeforetheTrialCourtdecidedDefendant'sMotionto   Dismiss,DefendantaskedtheTrialCourttoconverthisMotionto   DismisstoaMotionforSummaryJudgment.Defendantfiledthe p affidavitofalocalattorneyinsupportofhisMotionforSummary \ Judgment.Theaffidavitstatedthatitwasthelocalattorney'sopinion H thatDefendantdidnotdeviatefromtheapplicablestandardofcare 4 forattorneyspracticingwithinthelocalcommunity.Defendant,in  p hisTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03StatementofUndisputedFacts,doesnot  \ admitoutrightthathefailedtoprepareproperlytheAmendedPetition H but,instead,statesthatthetrialcourtdismissedtheAmended 4 Petition,inpart,becauseitwasnotproperlyswornto. ` x` x 8  8`    TheTrialCourtgrantedDefendant'sMotionforSummary  Judgment.InitsOrderdismissingPlaintiff'slegalmalpracticeclaim,  theTrialCourtheldthatnotwithstandingDefendant'sfailureto  complywithTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-204(e),theCriminalCourt l foundtheAmendedPetitiontobewithoutmerit,and,therefore, X  PlaintiffsufferednodamagesfromtheAmendedPetitionnotbeing D! verifiedunderoath.TheTrialCourtfurtherheldthattherewasno 0"  proofthatDefendantdeviatedfromtheapplicablestandardofcare. #l! Additionally,theTrialCourtheldthatPlaintiff'sComplaintwas $X" frivolous.8$D #` x` x Montaguev.Kellum,No.E200002732COAR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS356at*1*6 &"% (Tenn.Ct.App.May17,2001)(footnotesomitted),noappl.per.appealfiled. '#&    ` WevacatedthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremandedthecase.Insodoing,we )$( notedwewere atalossastohowDefendantsundisputedfailuretofollowtheclearrequirement |*%) ofTenn.CodeAnn.403204(e)...doesnotconstituteafailuretocomplywiththeapplicable h+&* standardofcare.Montaguev.Kellum,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS356at*12.We,therefore,  concludedataminimumagenuineissueofmaterialfactexistedastowhetherDefendantdeviated  fromtheapplicablestandardofcare.Wethenobservedtherewasnodisputefromtherecordthen  beforeusthatthepossibleviolationoftheapplicablestandardofcareresultedinnodamagesto t Plaintiff.Montaguev.Kellum,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS356at*13,*14.Wewentontostate: ` 8  8`   Otherthanthatpossibleviolation,therecordcontainsnoproofthat 8  Defendantdeviatedin[any]otherwayfromtheapplicablestandard $ t ofcare. `` x` x 8  8`    Ourinquiry,however,cannotendwithourreviewoftheTrial  8  Court'sgrantingofDefendant'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentbased $  upontherecordthenbeforeit.Ifthatweretheonlyissueonappeal,   wewouldaffirmtheTrialCourt.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;   Madisonv.Love,2000WL1036362,at*2.Onappeal,Plaintiffalso   questionstheTrialCourt'sorderthatcompletelyblockedPlaintiff's   attemptsatdiscoverybeforeitruledonDefendant'sMotionto p Dismiss/MotionforSummaryJudgment.WeagreewithPlaintiffthat \ theTrialCourterredinprohibitingPlaintiff'sdiscoveryinthismatter H beforeitruledonDefendant'smotionand,we,therefore,vacatethe 4 TrialCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. p` x` x Montaguev.Kellum,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS356at*14. H    ` AfterthecasewasremandedtotheTrialCourtandwhilethepartieswereconducting   discovery,onSeptember4,2001,theCourtofCriminalAppealsissueditsopinioninMontaguev.   State,No.E200001330CCAR3PC,2001Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS692(Tenn.Crim.App.Sept.  4,2001),noappl.perm.appealfiled,whichwastheappealofthedismissalofPlaintiffspost  convictionpetition.Initsorderdismissingthislawsuitforthesecondtime,theTrialCourtdiscussed  theopinionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsandcorrectlynoted: l 8  8`    TheCourtofCriminalAppealsconcludedthatthepost D! convictioncourt(thatistheCriminalCourtforWashingtonCounty) 0"  wascorrectinsummarilydismissingMr.Montaguespostconviction #l! reliefpetitionforfailingtobeproperlyverifiedunderoath.The $X" CourtofCriminalAppealsdidnotaddressthemeritsorotherwise $D # commentontheothersixfindingsin[theCriminalCourts]8Order %0!$ ofFebruary9,1999.&"%` x` x    ` OnJuly3,2002,theTrialCourtonceagaindismissedPlaintiffsmalpracticelawsuit. (#' Insodoing,theTrialCourtreliedinpartontheopinionofourSupremeCourtinGibsonv.Trant, )$( 58S.W.3d103(Tenn.2001),whichheldthatacriminaldefendantmustobtainpostconvictionrelief |*%) inordertomaintainalegalmalpracticeactionagainsthisdefenselawyer.BecausePlaintiffdidnot h+&* obtainpostconvictionrelief,andfurtherrelyingonourearlierOpiniontotheeffectthatPlaintiffhad  notprovenanydamages,theTrialCourtdeterminedDefendantsmotiontodismissshouldbe  granted.Thisappealfollowed.  @))% Discussion  `    ` SincemattersoutsidethepleadingswereconsideredbytheTrialCourtwhenit 8  grantedDefendantsmotiontodismiss,wewilltreatDefendantsmotionasamotionforsummary $ t judgmentinaccordancewithRule12.02.  #  1      ׀Thestandardforreviewofamotionforsummary  ` judgmentissetforthinStaplesv.CBL&Associates,Inc.,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000):  L  8  8`    Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourtsreviewofa $  motionforsummaryjudgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiry   involvespurelyaquestionoflaw,nopresumptionofcorrectness   attachestothelowercourtsjudgment,andourtaskisconfinedto   reviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirementsofTenn.   R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet.SeeHunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49, p 5051(Tenn.1997);Cowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth,816 \ S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure H 56.04providesthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere:(1)there 4 isnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevanttothe  p claimordefensecontainedinthemotion,seeByrdv.Hall,847  \ S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingpartyisentitled H toajudgmentasamatteroflawontheundisputedfacts.See 4 Andersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.   1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatitsmotion   satisfiestheserequirements.SeeDownenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811  S.W.2d523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummary  judgmentmakesaproperlysupportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothe  nonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistence l ofdisputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact. X  SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215.D!` x` x 8  8`    Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteither #l! affirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenonmovingpartys $X" claimorconclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefense.SeeMcCarley $D # v.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998); %0!$ Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997).Ifthemoving  partyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,thenonmoving  partysburdentoproduceevidenceestablishingtheexistenceofa  genuineissuefortrialisnottriggeredandthemotionforsummary t judgmentmustfail.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960 ` S.W.2dat588;Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426.Ifthemoving L  partysuccessfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon 8  movingpartymaynotsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustoffer $ t prooftoestablishtheexistenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim. `` x` x 8  8`    Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthe  8  summaryjudgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmust $  viewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty   andmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmoving   partysfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.   Hall,847S.W.2dat21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummary   judgmentonlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawn p fromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyone \ conclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn. H 1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).4` x` x Staples,15S.W.3dat8889.Afactis materialforsummaryjudgmentpurposes,ifit mustbe  \ decidedinordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected.Luther H v.Compton,5S.W.3d635,639(Tenn.1999)(quotingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat211). 4    ` Inordertomakeoutaprimafacielegalmalpracticeclaim,aplaintiffmustshow:(1)   thattheaccusedattorneyowedadutytotheplaintiff;(2)thattheattorneybreachedthatduty;(3)that  theplaintiffsuffereddamages;(4)thatthebreachwasthecauseinfactoftheplaintiff'sdamages;  and(5)thattheattorney'snegligencewastheproximate,orlegal,causeoftheplaintiff'sdamages.  SeeGibsonv.Trant,58S.W.3d103,108(Tenn.2001).OneofthereasonstheTrialCourtdismissed l thislawsuitwasbecauseitconcludedPlaintiffcouldnotprovehewasdamagedbyDefendants X  claimedmalpractice.Inotherwords,theTrialCourtheldDefendanthadnegatedanessential D! elementofPlaintiffsclaim,i.e.,thatPlaintiffhadsuffereddamagesasaresultofDefendants 0"  allegedmalpractice. #l!    ` Aspreviouslyindicated,andunfortunatelysoforDefendant,afterweissuedourfirst $D # Opinionandwhilethiscasewasonremand,thedismissalofPlaintiffspostconvictionpetitionwas %0!$ appealedtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsdeclinedtoaddressthe &"% meritsofthepostconvictionpetitionandaffirmedtheCriminalCourtsdismissalofthepost '#& convictionpetition forfailingtobeproperlyverifiedunderoath.Montaguev.State,No.E2000 (#' 01330CCAR3PC,2001Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS692at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.Sept.4,2001). )$( Therefore,becauseDefendantdidnotfileaverifiedpostconvictionpetition,Plaintiffdidnothave |*%) appellatereviewbytheCourtofCriminalAppealsofthedismissalofthepetitiononthemeritsas h+&* raisedinthepetition.Thequestioninourreviewofthisgrantofsummaryjudgmentthenbecomes  whetherornotDefendantsuccessfullynegatedthatessentialelement,i.e.damages,ofPlaintiffs  claim.AfactthatnowmustbeconsideredinarrivingatthisresolutionisthedecisionbytheCourt  ofCriminalAppealstoaffirmtheCriminalCourtsdismissalofthepostconvictionpetition for t failingtobeproperlyverifiedunderoath.Inshort,theCourtofCriminalAppealsneveraddressed, ` andithadnoneedtoaddress,themeritsofthepostconvictionpetition.TheTrialCourt L  acknowledgedthisfactinitsdiscussionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsOpinion.Thisdecision 8  bytheCourtofCriminalAppealswasnotapartoftherecordbeforeusinthefirstappeal. $ t    ` WebelievetheoutcomeofthisappealisdeterminedbytheSupremeCourtsopinion  L  inGibsonv.Trant,58S.W.3d103(Tenn.2001),whichheldthatacriminaldefendantmustobtain  8  postconvictionreliefinordertomaintainalegalmalpracticeactionagainsthisdefenselawyer.In $  sodoing,theGibsonCourtagreedwiththe largemajorityofcourts...[whichhave]heldthatsome   formofexonerationisapreconditiontomaintainingacriminalmalpracticeclaim.Aplaintiffmust   meetthisexonerationrequirementbeforehecansuehisdefenselawyer.Gibson,58S.W.3dat108.   TheCourtsetforthnumerouspolicyreasonstosupportitsconclusion.TheCourtobservedthat   criminalconvictionswerenotdesignedtobetestedintheciviltortarenafortworeasons.First, p dependingonthereliefwhichwassought,anawardofdamagesmaynecessarilyimplythatthe \ criminalcourtsreviewingtheconvictionerred.Second,thecriminaljusticesystemitselfprovides H adequatesystemsandsafeguardstopreventawronglyaccuseddefendantfromsufferingundeserved 4 criminalpenalties.Id.at112,113.TheCourtwentontoadd:  p 8  8`   Thepurposeofpost-conviction,afterall,istopreventthewrongly H accusedandunjustlyconvictedfromsufferingundeservedcriminal 4 penalties,andtoenforcetheconstitutionalguaranteesofafairtrial.   Tortlawcannotpossiblyservetheseends.Itisthereforereasonable   andfairtorequirecriminaldefendantstolooktothelegalprocess  designedtoprovideredressforwrongfulconvictions,andthento  respecttheoutcomeofthatprocessonceithasconcluded.Asone  courthasconciselystated,"itisthepublicpolicyofthisstatetotreat l anypersonwhohasbeenconvictedofanycriminaloffenseasvalidly X  convictedunlessanduntiltheperson'sconvictionhasbeen D! reversed...."Stevens,851P.2dat561.0" ` x` x Gibson,58S.W.3dat113(quotingStevensv.Bispham,316Or.221,851P.2d556(1993)). $X"    ` Inthisappeal,PlaintiffarguesGibsondoesnotapplybecauseGibsonaddressed %0!$ allegedlegalmalpracticeatthetrialstage,whereasthepresentcaseisconcernedwithallegedlegal &"% malpracticeatthepostconvictionstage.WhileweagreeGibsondoesnotapplyaseasilytothe '#& presentcasebecauseweareconfrontedwithallegedmalpracticeatthepostconvictionstage,we (#' neverthelessbelieveGibsoncontrols.ThepolicyconsiderationsexpressedinGibsonareequallyas )$( applicablenomatterwhatstagetheallegedlegalmalpracticeoccurred.Plaintiffcould,anddid,file |*%) ahabeascorpusproceedinginfederalcourtchallengingthevalidityofhisconviction.Inlightof h+&* thenumerouspolicyconsiderationssetforthinGibson,most,ifnotall,ofwhichareequallyas  compellinginthiscase,weholdPlaintiffmustobtainexonerationeitherinthefederalhabeascorpus  proceedingorinhiscriminalcaseproceedingsbeforehecanmaintainthepresentlegalmalpractice  action. t    ` ThefinalissueonappealisPlaintiffsargumenttheTrialCourterredinnotstaying L  thelegalmalpracticesuituntilresolutionofhishabeascorpusproceedinginfederalcourt.Weagree 8  withPlaintiffonthisissue.InGibson,theCourtstatedthatifacriminallegalmalpracticeclaim $ t cannotbedismissedonthepleadingsoronsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourt mustawaitthe  ` outcomeofthepostconvictionproceedingbeforedecidingwhetherthecaseshouldgotoajury.  L  Gibson,58S.W.3dat117.WebelievethisholdinginGibsonrequirestheTrialCourtawaitthe  8  outcomeofanypendingpostconvictionproceedingbutnotpotentialorpossiblepostconviction $  proceedingyettobefiled.Onremand,thiscasemustbestayedpendingresolutionofthepending   federalhabeascorpusproceeding.IfPlaintiffobtainsnoexonerationinthatproceeding,thepresent   caseshouldbedismissed.    @  %Conclusion  p    ` ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacated,andthiscauseisremandedtotheTrial H CourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasrequiredconsistentwiththisOpinion,andforcollectionofthe 4 costsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellee,MichaelD.Kellum.  p    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE l