Connection lost
Server error
DRAKE v. WICKWIRE Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An attorney advised his client to break a real estate contract based on the buyer’s ambiguous statements. The court found the attorney negligent as a matter of law for misapplying the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation, making expert testimony on the standard of care unnecessary.
Legal Significance: Establishes that an attorney’s clear misapplication of a fundamental legal doctrine, such as anticipatory repudiation, can constitute negligence as a matter of law, creating an exception to the general requirement for expert testimony in legal malpractice claims.
DRAKE v. WICKWIRE Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Drake engaged attorney Wickwire for a real estate sale. The buyers’ real estate agent, Hosley, communicated with Wickwire before closing. Hosley first stated the buyers would need until May 1 to obtain funds, which was past the closing deadline. Hosley then stated the buyers actually had the money but were “resisting the pressure to close.” Based on this conversation, Wickwire advised Drake that the buyers had committed an anticipatory repudiation of the contract and that Drake was free to sell the property to another party. Drake followed this advice. In a prior action, Drake was successfully sued for the real estate commission, with the court finding Drake had breached the sales agreement. Drake then filed the present legal malpractice action against Wickwire, alleging the advice was negligent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wickwire, reasoning that Drake had failed to provide required expert testimony to establish a breach of the attorney’s standard of care. Drake appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an attorney be found negligent as a matter of law, thereby obviating the plaintiff’s need for expert testimony, for advising a client to treat an ambiguous communication as a definitive anticipatory repudiation of a contract?
Yes. The court reversed summary judgment for the attorney, holding that Wickwire Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. E
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can an attorney be found negligent as a matter of law, thereby obviating the plaintiff’s need for expert testimony, for advising a client to treat an ambiguous communication as a definitive anticipatory repudiation of a contract?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that while legal malpractice claims typically require expert testimony, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqu
Legal Rule
In a legal malpractice action, expert testimony is generally required to establish Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum do
Legal Analysis
The court first affirmed the general rule that expert testimony is necessary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a legal malpractice action, expert testimony is not required if
