Font Size: 
A 6-Ton Sculpture of Jesus' Face -- and a Malpractice Suit
The National Law Journal
August 22, 2008
A legal malpractice lawsuit against Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz stemming from a case involving a 6-ton marble sculpture of Jesus Christ's face may proceed to trial.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee ruled Aug. 15 that the lower court erred when it threw out two of the former client's theories for malpractice and granted a final judgment to the plaintiff on a third theory. The decision remanded the case back to the lower court for trial.
The former client is Christus Gardens, a tourist attraction and gift shop in Gatlinburg, Tenn. It sued Baker Donelson for its alleged failure to file an appeal on time in a copyright infringement lawsuit that Christus Gardens was defending.
Christus Gardens lost the infringement case brought by the copyright owner of "Miracle Face," a giant sculpture resembling a burial stone that served as the main attraction at Christus Gardens.
Self-described as "America's No. 1 Religious Attraction," the park closed in January, according to its Web site.
The owner of the "Miracle Face" copyright sued Christus Garden in federal court after it began selling in its gift shop miniature versions of the sculpture created by other companies. Those companies had used the copyrighted sculpture to create a mold for the smaller items.
The federal district court found Christus Gardens liable for $100,000.
Following the judgment, the law firm failed to file a notice of appeal on time with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Christus Gardens' state court malpractice action, it asserted that Baker Donelson failed to give appropriate advice regarding a prejudgment settlement; failed to inquire as to whether it had insurance coverage for the infringement claims; and failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
In its Aug. 15 decision, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that the lower state court could not keep alive some of the claims and throw out others, because technically they were not claims at all but rather "alternative theories in pursuit of one recovery." In addition, it ruled that since the theories were not separate claims, the lower court erred when it granted Christus Gardens' motion for a final judgment on the third claim. Christus Gardens v. Baker Donelson, No. M2007-01104-COA-R3-CV.
Through a spokeswoman, Baker Donelson said, "[I]t is prudent and appropriate not to comment on this case until it is dismissed."
