Fishman v. Brooks
396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1377, 1986 Mass. LEXIS 1144 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits malpractice by negligently causing a client to settle a claim for an amount below what a properly represented client would have accepted, and expert testimony regarding the reasonable settlement value of the underlying claim is admissible to establish both the attorney's negligence and the client's damages.
Facts:
- On September 25, 1975, Larimore S. Brooks suffered serious injuries when a motor vehicle struck his bicycle in the breakdown lane of Route Nine in Newton.
- Brooks subsequently retained Irving Fishman to represent him in a personal injury action arising from the accident.
- Fishman delayed commencing the lawsuit for sixteen months and obtaining service on the driver for more than ten months after filing, and failed to adequately investigate the accident, including examining the vehicle, researching the driver's actions, or conducting useful pretrial discovery, thus missing key information like the driver's admission of not seeing Brooks.
- Fishman incorrectly informed Brooks that only $250,000 in insurance coverage was available for the personal injury claim, when $1,000,000 was actually available.
- Fishman advised Brooks to accept settlement offers, and Brooks ultimately agreed to settle his personal injury claim for $160,000, knowing Fishman was unprepared to try the case.
Procedural Posture:
- Irving Fishman filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Larimore S. Brooks, seeking an additional fee based on a purported agreement to save money on Brooks's medical bills.
- Brooks filed a counterclaim against Fishman, asserting claims for legal malpractice and abuse of process.
- Fishman voluntarily abandoned his declaratory relief claim before Brooks filed his counterclaim.
- In the trial court, a jury found Fishman negligent in handling the personal injury action and awarded Brooks $525,000 in damages for malpractice (reduced by contributory fault and settlement amounts received).
- The jury also returned a verdict of $10,000 for Brooks on his abuse of process claim.
- Fishman, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which transferred the case on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit malpractice by negligently causing a client to settle a personal injury claim for an inadequate amount, and is expert testimony on the reasonable settlement value of the underlying claim admissible to prove such negligence and resulting damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes, an attorney commits malpractice by negligently causing a client to settle for an inadequate amount, and expert testimony on reasonable settlement value is admissible. An attorney owes a duty to exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner. If an attorney breaches this duty by failing to properly prepare a case or lacking the ability to handle it through trial, thereby causing a client to accept a settlement not reasonable in the circumstances, the attorney is liable for the reasonably foreseeable loss. To prove damages in such a case, the 'trial within a trial' approach is used, where the jury determines what the client would have recovered had the attorney exercised adequate skill and care. Evidence of the fair settlement value of the underlying claim is admissible to prove both the attorney's negligence and that the negligence caused a loss to the client, as a settlement below what nonnegligent counsel would recommend constitutes a loss. The court clarified that while a violation of a canon of ethics or a disciplinary rule is not an actionable breach of duty itself, it may be some evidence of an attorney's negligence if the rule was intended to protect individuals in the client's position. However, expert testimony on whether an ethical rule was violated directly is inappropriate, though an expert on the standard of care may base their opinion on an attorney's failure to conform to a disciplinary rule.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for legal malpractice in settlement contexts, emphasizing that attorneys are liable for negligent professional judgment leading to inadequate settlements. It firmly endorses the 'trial within a trial' method for proving damages and explicitly allows expert testimony on reasonable settlement values. The opinion also provides important guidance on the evidentiary role of ethical rules, distinguishing between a direct breach and their use as circumstantial evidence of negligence, which helps define the scope of expert testimony in malpractice cases. This strengthens client protection and provides a clearer framework for assessing attorney performance and liability.
