Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-5-579 (2026)
Severability of Underlying Action and Available Defenses.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) If the liability to damages of a legal services provider is dependent in whole or in part upon the resolution of a underlying action, the outcome of which is either in doubt or could have been affected by the alleged breach of the legal services provider standards of care, then, in that event, the court shall upon the motion of the legal services provider, order the severance of the underlying action for separate trial.
(b) In defense of the underlying action, the legal services provider may assert any and all substantive and procedural defense, restriction, limitation, or immunity which could have the effect of limiting, mitigating, reducing, or avoiding liability or damages.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-262, p. 406, §10.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: Bonner v. Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., 26 So. 3d 1115 (Ala. 2009).
Bonner v. Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., 26 So. 3d 1115 (Ala. 2009). “Accordingly I believe the plain language of § 6-5-579 renders unnecessary this Court’s consideration of the judicially created doctrine of collateral estoppel as a bar to the legal-service providers’ ability to relitigate issues or defenses that were previously adjudicated in…”
Sanders v. Weaver, 583 So. 2d 1326 (Ala. 1991). “" Section 6-5-579 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) If the liability to damages of a legal services provider is dependent in whole .”
Kessler v. Gillis, 911 So. 2d 1072 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “Section 6-5-579(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the ALSLA, recognizes that the dual issues presented in a legal-malpractice action may call for a “severance of the underlying action for separate trial.”
McMurtry v. Wiseman, 237 F.R.D. 167 (W.D. Ky. 2006). “…upon the motion of the legal services provider, order the severance of the underlying action for separate trial." Ala.Code 1975 § 6-5-579.”
Daniels v. Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers, LLC (In re Daniels), 264 So. 3d 865 (Ala. 2018). “Code 1975 ("the ALSLA"), specifically, § 6-5-579, Ala. Code 1975, requires such a severance of claims.”
Daniels v. Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers, LLC (In re Daniels), 264 So. 3d 865 (Ala. 2018). “Code 1975 ("the ALSLA"), specifically, § 6-5-579, Ala. Code 1975, requires such a severance of claims.”
San Francisco Residence Club Inc v. Leader Bulso & Nolan PLC (N.D. Ala. 2019). “Ala. Code § 6-5-579 (b); see Valentine, 896 So.”
Laddin Ex Rel. Est. of Verilink Corp. v. Powell Goldstein LLP (In Re Verilink Corp.), 457 B.R. 832 (N.D. Ala. 2011). “Section 6-5-579(b), Ala.Code 1975, contemplates this “case within the case” concept: “In defense of the underlying action, the legal services provider may assert any and all substantive and procedural defense, restriction, limitation, or immunity which could have the effect of…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-579(a) — 3 cases
Kessler v. Gillis, 911 So. 2d 1072 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “Section 6-5-579(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the ALSLA, recognizes that the dual issues presented in a legal-malpractice action may call for a “severance of the underlying action for separate trial.”
Daniels v. Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers, LLC (In re Daniels), 264 So. 3d 865 (Ala. 2018). “Code 1975 ("the ALSLA"), specifically, § 6-5-579, Ala. Code 1975, requires such a severance of claims.”
Daniels v. Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers, LLC (In re Daniels), 264 So. 3d 865 (Ala. 2018). “Code 1975 ("the ALSLA"), specifically, § 6-5-579, Ala. Code 1975, requires such a severance of claims.”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-579(b) — 2 cases
Bonner v. Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., 26 So. 3d 1115 (Ala. 2009). “Accordingly I believe the plain language of § 6-5-579 renders unnecessary this Court’s consideration of the judicially created doctrine of collateral estoppel as a bar to the legal-service providers’ ability to relitigate issues or defenses that were previously adjudicated in…”
Laddin Ex Rel. Est. of Verilink Corp. v. Powell Goldstein LLP (In Re Verilink Corp.), 457 B.R. 832 (N.D. Ala. 2011). “Section 6-5-579(b), Ala.Code 1975, contemplates this “case within the case” concept: “In defense of the underlying action, the legal services provider may assert any and all substantive and procedural defense, restriction, limitation, or immunity which could have the effect of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.