[insert address]

[insert contact info]


 STEPHEN BOESCH, Plaintiff,  vs.
SCOTT D. HALL, ESQ. Defendant.

NOW COMES Plaintiff, STEPHEN BOESCH, Pro Se Plaintiff, and brings this action for damages against the Defendant Scott D. Hall, and in support hereof would respectfully show unto the Court the following facts and matters, to-wit:


  1. Plaintiff Stephen Boesch, (hereinafter “Plaintiff ”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State of Tennessee, whose address is 1945 Lee Proffitt Way Sevierville, TN 37876.
  2. Defendant Scott D. Hall (hereinafter “Defendant”) is an individual and an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee with a law office situated at 374 Forks of the River Parkway, Sevierville, TN 37862.
  3. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Boesch sought and secured the services of Defendant Hall for legal representation to institute and prosecute Plaintiff Boesch civil action case no. 16-5-164 Stephen Boesch v. Jay R. Holeman, et al (hereinafter “Boesch Case”) which centered around a trade secret dispute and buyout to exit a partnership engagement.
  4. During pendency of the Boesch Case, the defendants in the Boesch Case filed their answers and interrogatories as required of them. Further, several depositions exercises were carried out and transcripts of the same were filed as part of the court record.
  5. Plaintiff Boesch equally filed his interrogatories and disclosures for the court record in preparation for trial.
  6. The Boesch Case proceeded for trial on September 19, 2019 and December 12, 2019 and each party was provided an opportunity to adduce their evidence and witness testimony before the honorable trial court.
  7. During the trial proceedings it came to the attention of Plaintiff Boesch that witness testimonies by the defendants’ witnesses in the Boesch Case contradicted depositions and evidence on record.
  8. It was the expectation of Plaintiff Boesch that Defendant Hall would call out the inconsistencies and bring the same to the court’s attention, and to Plaintiff Boesch’s disappointment, no challenge was introduced by Defendant Hall.
  9. Focused on the best outcome of the Boesch Case, Plaintiff Boesch submitted to Defendant Hall summary of issues and list of potential questions that Defendant Hall should consider moving forward with the trial. As the trial proceeded, to Plaintiff Boesch’s dismay, Defendant Hall did not take into consideration Plaintiff Boesch’s concerns or suggestions.
  10. Plaintiff Boesch placed reliance and hope on Defendant Hall’s representations and assurance of experience, skill and expertise to properly prosecute the Boesch Case. Plaintiff Boesch believed Defendant Hall to be perfectly capable of handling the Boesch Case.
  11. On [insert date] judgement was delivered in the Boesch Case and to the Plaintiff’s surprise, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants and to the Detriment of the Plaintiff.


(Legal Malpractice against Defendant Hall)

  1. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General Allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 11 alleged herein above, and make them a part hereof as though set forth at length.
  2. Sometimes in March 2016, Plaintiff, through the Defendant, instituted Boesch Case which had been filed in the Chancery Court for Sevier County of Tennessee.
  3. Before retaining the Defendant’s services as his Counsel, Plaintiff had a discussion with the Defendant regarding the nature of the Boesch Case with reference to the skills and expertise required to prosecute the case.
  4. The Defendant assured and represented that he possessed the requisite skills, ability and expertise to properly prosecute the Boesch Case.
  5. The Defendant had a duty to use such skill, prudence and diligence as a member of the legal profession commonly possesses and exercise, in providing legal services to the Plaintiff herein.
  6. During the course of the Defendant’s representation of the Plaintiff, there were several instances wherein the conduct of the Defendants fell below the applicable standard of care, as set forth herein.
  7. Although Defendants in the Boesch Case filed their answer, deposition and response to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories, during the trial proceedings on September 19, 2019, Defendants repeatedly contradicted their answer, deposition and response to interrogatories, which contradictions the Defendant Hall did not address, question or bring to the attention of the Chancery Court.
  8. Equally concerning was the fact that testimonies submitted by the Defendants went in direct contradiction to evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the Boesch Case. Defendant Hall as counsel for the Plaintiff in the Boesch Case failed to test the witness’ testimony against the evidence submitted before the court
  9. Defendant Hall failed to take appropriate measures to assure that the Defendants in the Boesch Case were thoroughly examined and make full disclosure of the contents of their answers, depositions and interrogatories. Further Defendant hall failed to assure full disclosure and assessment of the evidence produced by Plaintiff Boesch in the Boesch Case. Critical evidence was therefore not considered at trial thereby denying Plaintiff Boesch from presenting a stronger more cogent case against the Defendants in the Boesch Case.
  10. Defendant Hall’s conduct in not sufficiently examining the Defense witnesses and in failing to recognize the issue and extent to which the Plaintiff’s evidence was relevant to counter the witness testimonies fell below the standard of care. Furthermore, Defendant Hall’s failure to note contradictions in the witness testimonies against their court filed documents and failure to thereafter take necessary measures to sufficiently respond, rebut, or challenge the testimonies fell below standard of care.
  11. Defendant Hall’s conduct in doing the acts and omissions herein alleged directly resulted in damages and harm to Plaintiff Boesch as set out hereinabove.
  12. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the foregoing paragraphs the defendants breached their contract for the provision of legal services to the plaintiff.  As a result of the defendants’ breach, the plaintiff has suffered great and unnecessary loss.
  13. The plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s breach in the amount of $967,000.


(Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendant Hall)

  • Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General Allegations and the allegations of the First Cause of Action in paragraphs 1 through 24 herein above, and make them part hereof as though set forth at length.
  • Defendant Hall owed Plaintiff Boesch a fiduciary duty to act at all times in good faith and in Plaintiff Boesch’s best interests, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the services for which he was retained with reasonable care and skill, to act in Plaintiff Boesch’s highest and best interests at all times, and to not expose Plaintiff Boesch to any unnecessary risk or peril. This fiduciary and confidential relationship was never repudiated by Defendant Hall.
  • The acts and omissions constituting breach of Defendant Hall’s fiduciary duty was committed in oppression, fraud and/or malice.
  • By engaging in the conduct set forth in the foregoing paragraphs the defendants have neglected their duty to the plaintiff and are liable to the plaintiff for damages sustained pursuant to Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 1.3.
  • The plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the defendants’ neglect of their duty in the amount of $ 967,000.


(Common Law Negligence)

  • Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General Allegations and the allegations of the First and Second Cause of Action in paragraphs 1 through 29 herein above, and make them part hereof as though set forth at length.
  • As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, as a result of Defendants Hall’s undertaking to provide legal services to Plaintiff Boesch, Defendant Hall had a duty of care to Plaintiff Boesch to exercise the skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by attorneys under similar circumstances, to exercise a reasonable degree of care, skill, and dispatch in carrying out the business for which they were employed.
  • By engaging in the conduct set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, the defendants negligently breached their duty of care to the plaintiff.  
  • The plaintiff has suffered loss of damages as a result of the defendants’ breach of their duty of care in the amount of $ 300,000 for violation of trade secrets, $300,000 in punitive damages for violation of the Trade Secrets Act, $300,000 in partnership interest and $67,000 loss in construction labor.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Boesch prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set forth below:

  1. For actual damages the amount of $967,000;
    1. For exemplary damages according to proof;
    1. For interest as allowed by law;
    1. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
    1. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated:  March 15, 2023Respectfully submitted,


This is to certify that the foregoing was served by First Class US Mail upon Scott D. Hall, at 374 Forks of the River Parkway, Sevierville, Tennessee 37862 on this ______ day of ______________, 2021

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )