ÿWPCÿ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ý4 + 0§: á 0Dé w@- 0Jm 0T· 0^ 0hi 0rÑ 0|C 0†¿ 0E 1uÕ U,J 0dvbÚU,âU> BLU*iU*“B)½DCæ D3) AM\ © 0@Év~ vÓ‡ AOZÆ© 0Do D/³ Bâ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡@"Arial RegularGav 3|xÇ (W(2èú$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€òÙ±òXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó µ ¶ D· ¸ Se¹ Ӏà Ä Å UÆ EÇ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù-< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌMay€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€„XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔØ ØÓ&€''XÐd&ÓÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|Õ` ç `€€LßÌÌ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌœCAN›€DO,€œINC.€PENSION€AND€PROFITà à)ÌSHARING€PLAN€AND€SUCCESSORà à)ÌPLANS,€INDIVIDUALLY€AND€AS€Aà à)€€€€€à à€ò òòòFiled:€€€May€6,€1996ó óóó€ÌTRUSTEE€FOR€GEORGE€W.€à àà à)ÌHOLDER,€JR.,›à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àœPlaintiff„Appellee,›à àà àœ)à à€DAVIDSON€CHANCERY›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›ÌœVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€IRVIN€œKILCREASE›,ÌœMANIER›,€HEROD,€œHOLLABAUGH›à à)à àà àCHANCELLORÌ&€œSMITH,€a€professional€corporation,›à à)ÌœC.€KINIAN€COSNER,€JR.,€and€à àà à)ÌH.€ROWAN€LEATHERS,€III,à àà à)Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àœDefendants„Appellants.›à à)€à àNo.€01„S„01„9501„CH„00013ÌÌÓÓà àà àÌÓÓÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àà àFor€œAppellee:ó óóó›ÌÌRobert€L.€œTrentham›à àà àà àà àà àAlfred€H.€KnightÌMark€Tyler€œSeitz›à àà àà àà àà àWILLIS€&€KNIGHTÌœTRABUE›,€œSTURDIVANT›€&€œDEWITT›à àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€&°Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœCOURT›€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€ÌREINSTATED.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€œANDERSON,C.J.›à àÇÓÓà àThis€case€presents€a€question€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee:€whetherÏor€not€a€legal€malpractice€claim€is€assignable.€€We€have€determined€that€soundÏpublic€policy€reasons€militate€against€allowing€assignment€of€legal€malpracticeÏactions.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€dismiss€the€complaint.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThis€appeal€arises€from€the€trial€court's€grant€of€the€defendant€law€firm'sÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim.€€Accordingly,€the€factsÏas€alleged€in€the€complaint€must€be€taken€as€true,€and€are€as€follows.ÌÌà àGeorge€W.€Holder,€Jr.,€employed€the€defendant€law€firm,€Manier,€Herod,ÏHollabaugh€and€Smith,€to€perform€certain€legal€services€for€him.€€Later,€HolderÏindividually€filed€a€voluntary€bankruptcy€petition.€€Holder€owned€all€the€stock€inÏCan€Do,€Inc.€and€was€the€primary€beneficiary€of€and€served€as€trustee€of€theÏCan€Do,€Inc.€Pension€and€Profit€Sharing€Plan.€€ÌÌà àThe€bankruptcy€trustee,€William€L.€Newport,€transferred€to€the€Can€Do,ÏInc.€Pension€and€Profit€Sharing€Plan€certain€assets,€including€an€assignment€ofÏ"any€cause€of€action€or€right€to€payment€the€bankruptcy€estate€may€have€againstÏthe€following€.€.€.€C.€Kinian€œCosner,›€Jr.€and€Manier,€Herod,€œHollabaugh›€andÍSmith."ÌÌà àFollowing€the€transfer,€Can€Do,€Inc.,€filed€this€complaint€asserting€that€theÏlaw€firm's€mismanagement€of€Holder's€legal€affairs€resulted€in€his€bankruptcy.€ÏThe€law€firm€moved€to€dismiss€the€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim,€upon€theÏgrounds€that€the€"claim€for€legal€malpractice,€if€any,€belongs€to€George€W.ÏHolder€and€cannot,€as€a€matter€of€law,€be€assigned."ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint,€because€"the€assignment€of€aÏlegal€malpractice€claim€in€Tennessee€is€void€and€invalid€as€against€publicÏpolicy€because€it€constitutes€champerty€and€maintenance€and€would€frustrate,€ifÏnot€entirely€endanger,€the€attorney€„„€client€relationship."€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€reversed,€concluding€that€a€legal€malpracticeÏcause€of€action€survives€the€death€of€the€assignor€and€therefore€is€assignable,Ïand€adopted€the€minority€view€that€assignment€of€such€claims€does€not€violateÏpublic€policy.€€ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€defendants'€application€to€consider€this€importantÏquestion€of€first€impression€in€this€State.€€For€the€reasons€articulated€below,€weÍhave€concluded€that€legal€malpractice€claims€are€not€assignable.ÌÌà@ àò òòòASSIGNMENTóóó óÌà àBecause€a€legal€malpractice€claim€is€a€chose€in€action,€we€begin€ourÏanalysis€by€reviewing€the€assignability€of€choses€in€action.€€With€few€exceptions,Ïat€early€common€law,€a€chose€in€action,€which€is€a€right€of€proceeding€in€a€courtÏof€law€to€procure€payment€of€a€sum€of€money€or€to€recover€a€debt,€was€notÏassignable.€€òòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó,€241(6th€ed.€1990);€òòMoran€v.€Adkersonóó,€168ÏTenn.€372,€79€S.W.2d€44€(1935).€€The€rule€of€nonassignability€was€so€strictlyÏconstrued€that€it€applied€even€though€the€original€promise€was€made€to€theÏpromisee€and€his€assigns.€€€òòHutsell€v.€Citizens'€Nat.€Bankóó,€166€Tenn.€598,€64ÏS.W.2d€188€(1933).ÌÌà àOne€reason€cited€to€support€the€rule€of€nonassignability€was€thatÏpersonal€rights€are€nontransferable.€€òòSeeóó€òòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.€Raikosóó,€582€N.E.2dÏ338€(Ind.€1991).€€However,€the€major€purpose€of€the€rule€was€to€preventÏchamperty€and€maintenance.€€€In€Tennessee,€"champerty"€has€been€defined€asÏ"a€bargain€with€a€plaintiff€or€defendant€in€a€cause€to€divide€the€matter€sued€for,€ifÏthey€prevail,€whereupon€the€champertor€is€to€carry€on€the€party's€suit€at€his€ownÏexpense;"€€whereas,€"maintenanceðð€has€been€defined€as€"an€officiousÍintermeddling€in€a€suit€which€no€way€belongs€to€one€by€maintaining€or€assistingÏeither€party,€with€money€or€otherwise,€to€prosecute€or€defeat€it."€€òòSpicer€v.ÏJarrettóó,€61€Tenn.€454,€457€(1873)€(citations€omitted).€ÌÌà àThe€rule€of€nonassignability€began€to€gradually€erode€over€time€as€theÏpublic€need€to€expand€the€quantity€of€transferable€property€in€commerceÏincreased.€€Under€modern€statutes€and€decisions,€the€assignability€of€a€chose€inÏaction€is€now€the€general€rule,€and€nonassignability€the€exception.€€6A€C.J.S.,ÏòòAssignmentsóó€ðððð€6€and€7€(1975).€€For€example,€in€Tennessee,€any€contract„based€chose€in€action,€except€those€involving€matters€purely€personal€in€nature,Ïis€assignable.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„50„102€(1995);€òòBerger€v.€Paalzowóó,Ï40€Tenn.€App.€153,€289€S.W.2d€861€(1956).€€Tort€actions€involving€injuries€toÏproperty€are€also€assignable,€òòEast€Tenn€G.€&€V.R.R.€v.€Hendersonóó,€69€Tenn.€1Ï(1878);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„5„120€(1994),€while€tort€actions€involvingÏpersonal€injuries€and€wrongs€done€to€the€person,€reputation,€or€feelings€of€theÏinjured€party€continue€to€be€unassignable.€€òòSeeóó€Annotation,€òòAssignability€ofÏClaim€for€Personal€Injury€or€Deathóó,€40€A.L.R.2d€500€(1975);€6A€C.J.S.€ðð€7,ÏòòAssignmentsóó€(1975).ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€a€statute,€courts€determining€whether€a€chose€in€actionÍis€assignable€generally€apply€the€traditional€common€law€test€„€whether€theÏaction€would€survive€the€death€of€the€assignor€and€pass€to€the€personalÏrepresentative.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòHaymes€v€Hallidayóó,€151€Tenn.€115,€268€S.W.€130Ï(1925).€€For€example,€in€this€case,€the€Court€of€Appeals€applied€that€traditionalÏsurvivability€test€and€determined€that€legal€malpractice€actions€survive€the€deathÏof€the€assignor€and€are€assignable.ÌÌà àAlthough€a€chose€in€action€must€survive€to€be€assignable,€not€everyÏaction€that€survives€is€assignable.€€For€example,€claims€for€personal€injuriesÏsurvive,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„5„102€(1994),€but€generally€are€notÏassignable.€€ÌÌà àIn€modern€times,€the€common€law€test€of€determining€the€issue€ofÏassignability€solely€by€whether€the€claim€survives€the€assignor's€death€seemsÏoutdated€and€misplaced.€€Other€state€courts€have€experienced€difficulty€inÏapplying€the€survival€test€and€have€approached€this€issue€by€consideringÏfactors€such€as€public€policy€considerations,€which€vary€depending€upon€theÏparticular€type€of€action€under€examination.€€òòJoos€v.€Drillockóó,€338€N.W.2d€736,Ï738€(Mich.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àPublic€policy€is,€in€fact,€the€primary€consideration€upon€which€courts€fromÏother€jurisdictions€have€focused€in€determining€the€assignability€of€a€legalÏmalpractice€action.€€For€example,€the€Indiana€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àà àToday,€it€seems€anachronistic€to€resolve€the€issue€ofÏthe€assignability€of€a€legal€malpractice€claim€by€deciding€whetherÏsuch€a€claim€would€survive€the€client's€death.€.€.€.€€As€is€sometimesÏthe€case€with€the€common€law,€the€rule€has€outlived€the€reason€forÏits€creation.€€The€customs,€beliefs,€or€needs€of€a€primitive€timeÏestablish€a€rule€or€a€formula.€€In€the€course€of€the€centuries€theÏcustom,€belief€or€necessity€disappears,€but€the€rule€remains.€ÏWhere€such€is€the€case,€this€Court€has€been€willing€to€reexamineÏthe€basis€of€the€rule.€€ÌÌÌà8 àà àAssignment€should€be€permitted€or€prohibited€based€on€theÏeffect€it€will€likely€have€on€modern€society,€and€the€legal€system€inÏparticular.ÌÌÓÓÌòòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.€Raikosóó,€582€N.E.2d€at€341€(internal€citations€and€quotationsÏomitted).€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€Indiana€Supreme€Court€that€in€resolving€the€questionÏof€assignability€of€legal€malpractice€actions,€public€policy€considerations,€ratherÏthan€the€traditional€survivability€test,€should€guide€the€analysis.€€Indeed,€it€isÏparticularly€appropriate€for€this€Court€to€examine€the€public€policyÍconsiderations€that€bear€upon€this€question€as€we€have€exclusive€originalÏjurisdiction€over€matters€relating€to€the€practice€of€law.€€òòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909ÏS.W.2d€768€(Tenn.€1995).€€Likewise,€we€conclude€that€resolution€of€the€questionÏshould€not€turn€on€whether€a€claim€for€legal€malpractice€is€classified€as€aÏbreach€of€contract€claim€or€a€personal€injury€claim.€€òòWagener€v.€McDonaldóó,€509ÏN.W.2d€188,€190€(Minn.€App.€1993).€€Rather€than€straining€to€fit€the€claim€into€aÏcategory,€we€think€the€better€approach€is€to€resolve€the€question€on€publicÏpolicy€grounds.ÌÌà àEmploying€that€analysis,€a€majority€of€jurisdictions€have€concluded€thatÏpublic€policy€considerations€militate€against€allowing€assignment€of€legalÏmalpractice€actions.€€Francis€M.€Dougherty,€Annotation,€òòAssignability€of€ClaimÏfor€Legal€Malpracticeóó,€40€A.L.R.4th€684€(1985€&€Supp.€1995);€òòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.ÏRaikosóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòBank€IV€Wichita,€Nat'l€Ass'n€v.€Arn,€Mullins,€Unruh,€Kuhn€&ÏWilsonóó,€827€P.2d€758€(Kan.€1992);€òòEarth€Science€Laboratories,€Inc.€v.€Adkins€&ÏWondra,€P.C.óó,€523€N.W.2d€254€(Neb.€1994);€òòChaffee€v.€Smithóó,€645€P.2d€966Ï(Nev.€1982);€òòSchroeder€v.€Hudginsóó,€690€P.2d€114€(Ariz.€App.€1984);€òòGoodley€v.ÏWank€&€Wank,€Incóó,€133€Cal.€Rptr.€83€(Cal.€App.€1976);€òòRoberts€v.€Holland€&ÏHartóó,€857€P.2d€492€(€Colo.€App.€1993);€òòWashington€v.€Fireman's€Fund€Ins.€Co.óó,Ï459€So.2d€1148€(Fla.€App.€1984);€òòChristison€v.€Jonesóó,€405€N.E.2d€8€(Ill.€App.Í1980);€òòCoffey€v.€Jefferson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€756€S.W.2d€155€(Ky.€App.€1988);ÏòòJoos€v.€Drillockóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòWagener€v.€McDonaldóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòCity€of€Garland€v.€Boothóó,Ï895€S.W.2d€766€(Tex.€App.€1995);€òòContinental€Cas.€Co.€v.€Pullman,€Comley,ÏBradley€&€Reevesóó,€709€F.€Supp.€44€(D.€Conn.€1989),€òòaff'dóó€929€F.2d€103€(2ndÏCir.€1999);€òòScarlett€v.€Barnesóó,€121€B.R.€578€(W.D.€Mo.€1990);€òòcontraóó€òòThurston€v.ÏContinental€Cas.€Co.óó,€567€A.2d€922€(Me.€1989);€òòCollins€v.€Fitzwateróó,€560€P.2dÏ1074€(Or.€1977),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó€€òòLancaster€v.€Royal€Ins.€Co.óó,€726ÏP.2d€371€(Or.€1986);€òòHedlund€Mfg.€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Weiser,€Stapler€&€Spivakóó,€539ÏA.2d€357€(Pa.€1988);€òòAmerican€Hemisphere€Marine€Agencies,€Inc.€v.€Kreisóó,€244ÏN.Y.S.2d€602€(N.Y.€Sup.€1963).ÌÌà àThe€many€public€policy€reasons€underlying€these€courts'€rejection€ofÏassignability€of€legal€malpractice€claims€was€perhaps€best€summarized€by€theÏCalifornia€appellate€court€in€òòGoodleyóó,€which€was€the€first€to€flatly€confront€theÏissue.€€There,€the€court€focused€on€the€unique€character€of€legal€services,€theÏpersonal€nature€of€the€attorney's€duty€to€the€client,€and€the€confidentiality€of€theÏattorney„client€relationship.ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€assignment€of€such€claims€could€relegate€the€legalÏmalpractice€action€to€the€market€place€and€convert€it€to€aÏcommodity€to€be€exploited€and€transferred€to€economic€biddersÏwho€have€never€had€a€professional€relationship€with€the€attorneyÍand€to€whom€the€attorney€has€never€owed€a€legal€duty,€and€whoÏhave€never€had€any€prior€connection€with€the€assignor€or€hisÏrights.€€The€commercial€aspect€of€assignability€of€choses€in€actionÏarising€out€of€legal€malpractice€is€rife€with€probabilities€that€couldÏonly€debase€the€legal€profession.€€The€almost€certain€end€result€ofÏmerchandizing€such€causes€of€action€is€the€lucrative€business€ofÏfactoring€malpractice€claims€which€would€encourage€unjustifiedÏlawsuits€against€members€of€the€legal€profession,€generate€anÏincrease€in€legal€malpractice€litigation,€promote€champerty€andÏforce€attorneys€to€defend€themselves€against€strangers.€€TheÏendless€complications€and€litigious€intricacies€arising€out€of€suchÏcommercial€activities€would€place€an€undue€burden€on€not€onlyÏthe€legal€profession€but€the€already€overburdened€judicial€system,Ïrestrict€the€availability€of€competent€legal€services,€embarrass€theÏattorney„client€relationship€and€imperil€the€sanctity€of€the€highlyÏconfidential€and€fiduciary€relationship€existing€between€attorneyÏand€client.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó,€133€Cal.€Rptr.€at€87.ÌÌà àWe€generally€agree€with€the€òòGoodleyóó€court€and€conclude€thatÏassignment€of€legal€malpractice€actions€would€both€endanger€the€attorney„client€relationship€and€commercialize€legal€malpractice€lawsuits.€€€We€areÏparticularly€concerned€that€the€relationship€between€an€attorney€and€clientÏremain€a€fiduciary€relationship€of€the€very€highest€character.€€As€a€result€of€thatÏrelationship,€the€attorney€owes€the€client€not€only€the€duty€to€use€skill,€prudenceÏand€diligence€in€the€rendition€of€services,€but€also€the€duty€to€act€loyally€towardsÏthe€client€and€to€maintain€client€confidences.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€Canons€4€andÍ5.€€These€rules€and€their€enforcement€by€this€Court€protect€the€public,€and€aÏviolation€may€result€in€disciplinary€action,€as€well€as€a€legal€malpractice€claim.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWagener€v.€McDonaldóó,€509€N.W.2d€at€191.€€€Allowing€free€assignmentÏwould€be€a€disservice€to€the€public€by€compromising€both€the€attorney's€duty€ofÏloyalty€and€the€duty€of€confidentiality,€resulting€in€a€weakened€attorney„clientÏrelationship.ÌÌà àAs€the€Indiana€Supreme€Court€recognized,€"[a]n€adversary€might€wellÏmake€a€favorable€settlement€offer€to€a€judgment„proof€or€financially€strappedÏclient€in€exchange€for€the€assignment€of€that€client's€right€to€bring€a€malpracticeÏclaim€against€his€attorney.€€Lawyers€involved€in€such€negotiations€would€quicklyÏrealize€that€the€interests€of€their€clients€were€incompatible€with€their€own€self„interest."€€òòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.€Raikosóó,€582€N.E.2d€at€343;€òòCity€of€Garland€v.€Boothóó,Ï895€S.W.2d€at€770.€€The€risk€that€allowing€assignments€of€claims€would€impairÏan€attorney's€loyalty€would€be€present€therefore,€not€only€in€those€cases€inÏwhich€a€client€assigned€a€malpractice€claim,€but€in€all€other€cases€as€well.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€assignment€would€compromise€the€duty€of€confidentiality.€ÏWhenever€an€attorney€is€sued€by€a€client€for€legal€malpractice,€the€attorney€isÏpermitted€to€reveal€confidential€client€information€reasonably€necessary€toÍestablish€a€defense.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR€4„101(C)(4).€€So€long€as€the€clientÏbrings€the€malpractice€claim,€the€client€has€the€power€to€drop€the€lawsuit€toÏavoid€the€disclosure€of€embarrassing€confidential€communications.€€òòIdóó.€€Once€aÏlegal€malpractice€claim€is€assigned,€however,€the€client€loses€control€of€theÏlitigation.€€The€assignee€controls€the€claim€and€may€have€little€or€no€concern€forÏthe€client's€sensitivities.€€The€client€could€thereby€be€harmed€and€suchÏdisclosures€would€foster€disrespect€for€the€attorney„client€relationship€inÏgeneral.€€òòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.€Raikosóó,€582€N.E.2d€at€343„44;€€òòWagener€v.€McDonaldóó,Ï509€N.W.2d€at€192.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€in€our€view,€the€commercialization€of€legal€malpractice€claims€thatÏwould€be€fostered€by€allowing€assignment€is€inimical€to€the€legal€profession€andÏthe€administration€of€justice.€€"Unlike€any€other€commercial€transaction,€theÏclient„lawyer€relationship€is€structured€to€function€within€an€adversarial€legalÏsystem.€€In€order€to€operate€within€this€system,€the€relationship€must€do€moreÏthan€bind€together€a€client€and€a€lawyer.€€It€must€also€work€to€repel€attacks€fromÏlegal€adversaries.€€Those€who€are€not€privy€to€the€relationship€are€oftenÏpurposefully€excluded€because€they€are€pursuing€interests€adverse€to€theÏclient's€interests."€€òòPicadilly,€Inc.€v.€Raikosóó,€582€N.E.2d€at€343„44.€€AssignmentÏwould€undermine€the€fundamental€structure€and€function€of€the€relationship€andÍcreate€a€risk€of€collusion€that€must€not€be€countenanced.€€òòCity€of€Garland€v.ÏBoothóó,€895€S.W.2d€at€770;€òòWagener€v.€McDonaldóó,€509€N.W.2d€at€191.€ÏAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€considerations€of€public€policy€prohibit€theÏassignment€of€legal€malpractice€claims€in€Tennessee.Ìòòò òÌÌà@ àCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àBecause€we€have€determined€that€the€public€policy€of€this€State€shouldÏprohibit€the€assignment€of€legal€malpractice€actions,€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€this€actionÏis€reinstated.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff„appellee,€Can€Do,ÏInc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€and€White,€JJ.Ì