Providing education ranging from fundamental skills to the latest legislative changes

From Boston Bar Journal: Staying Out of Harm’s Way – Avoiding Legal Malpractice Claims

Monday, December 31, 2012

By Robert L. Ullmann and Jonathan L. Kotlier

Practice Tips

Every law firm—no matter its size, reputation, or practice area—will someday face the specter of a legal malpractice claim. No firm is immune. However, there are steps attorneys and their firms can take to minimize the risk of a claim and to maximize their ability to defend themselves. The authors have handled several legal malpractice cases and in all these cases there have been aggravating factors that have made the case much more difficult to defend and increased the settlement value of the case. Despite lawyer jokes, we are actually human and we do make mistakes. However, what we do not want to do is to exacerbate those mistakes through ancillary errors that put the lawyer or firm in a bad light. By avoiding such errors, the law firm will decrease its exposure and will be in a position to contest the claims, rather than having to capitulate to avoid negative publicity. This article will identify some of those ancillary errors and suggest ways to avoid them.

The following fictionalized scenario illustrates several possible errors: A senior associate in a multi-national law firm is approached by a former colleague and now in-house attorney with an opportunity to defend his company in a litigation matter. The case involves a former employee who sued the company for millions of dollars alleging wrongful termination. The senior associate has never handled this type of matter before and, in fact, has never before tried a case. However, he figures that the case is sufficiently similar to other cases on which he has helped partners that he believes he could represent the client effectively and, really, what are the chances the case will actually go to trial? In his pitch to in-house counsel, the senior associate represents he is an experienced litigator (but does not mention that he has never before tried a case) and promises that the case will be overseen by a very experienced senior partner. He crafts a proposed litigation budget for the client and, in his enthusiasm to win the client, produces a budget that is unrealistically low, far below those of the other firms in the mix. The client is pleased with the pitch and the budget and retains the attorney and his firm. The senior associate is pleased with himself, because he is up for partner within the year.

Their pleasure is short-lived. The in-house counsel sees himself as an active participant in the litigation team. He raises concerns about strategy decisions and legal arguments. The senior associate ignores the client’s request to advance certain defenses and proceeds with the litigation without addressing the client’s concerns. In doing so, just in the discovery phase alone, the senior associate and his cadre of more junior associates rack up legal fees more than ten times what he had estimated the fees would be through trial. This helps his bid to become partner, but does not endear him to the client.

The case eventually proceeds to trial and the senior associate, now a new partner, takes on the role of lead trial counsel even though he has never taken a case to trial. He does not bring in a senior partner to help try the case. At trial, the attorney continues to ignore the questions and suggestions of the client. In so doing, he fails to make a legal argument that has merit and could have significantly impacted the result. The jury verdict is a disaster for the client, with damages exponentially greater than the attorney or the client ever expected. After all appeals are exhausted, the client brings a malpractice action against the firm.

The demand letter’s main claim is that the senior associate failed to make a legal argument that a reasonable attorney would have made in the case. This is a standard malpractice claim based on the negligence standard articulated by the courts. To prevail, the client must show that the senior associate failed to “exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified petitioner.” Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 646 (1986). On this standard, the firm has some quite plausible defenses to the claims.

Moreover, the client will face the hurdle of providing adequate expert testimony to prove the senior associate’s negligence. In Pongonis v. Saab, 396 Mass. 1005 (1985), the Supreme Judicial Court explained that expert testimony is required to demonstrate an attorney’s negligence unless “the claimed legal malpractice is so gross or obvious that laymen can rely on their common knowledge to recognize or infer negligence.” This is not an easy hurdle to clear. The Appeals Court, in Colucci v. Rosen, Goldberg, Slavet, Levenson & Wekstein, P.C., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 107, 111 (1987), required a client to demonstrate through expert testimony that the attorney’s failure to learn about and comply with a procedural statute, which was both crucial to the client’s case and widely known within that field of law, was negligent. If the client in this fact pattern wants to challenge the senior associate’s trial strategy and legal arguments, it will need to prepare itself for a battle of the experts.

An additional hurdle for the client in this fact pattern is the element of causation. To prove causation on a litigation malpractice claim, a client must present a “trial within a trial” and show that he would have “probably” prevailed in the underlying case but for the attorney’s negligence. Fishman, 396 Mass. at 647. For the most part, this hurdle also requires expert testimony that establishes a link between the attorney’s negligence and the bad outcome for the client. See Frullo v. Landenberger, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 814, 818 (2004).

The hurdles for the plaintiff are high, but what makes the case highly risky to defend are the attendant embarrassing and aggravating factors—the legal fees so far exceeding the proposal, the senior associate not being forthcoming about his lack of trial experience, the failure to address the client’s concerns that actually had merit, and the failure to bring in a senior attorney who had significant trial experience. The risk that such embarrassing allegations would become public make it impossible for the firm to defend. It has to settle.

As you read this sample fact pattern, you probably think to yourself that this example is exaggerated and that there is no way I or my firm would make similar mistakes. Think again—this example is a disguised, real life situation involving a prestigious law firm (not based in Massachusetts), and as lawyers we all face at least some of the pressures that led the lawyer and firm astray. What follows is a discussion of the errors cited above and how firms and individual attorneys can take steps to avoid these pitfalls.

1. Always be objective and straightforward with a client

Nothing exacerbates the damage in a legal malpractice case more than the plaintiff being able to allege that his lawyer or law firm was not straight with him. What lawyer or firm would want to litigate a legal malpractice case in which their honesty and credibility are questioned? In addition to reputational damage, the lawyer and law firm are now at risk of greater liability. The Appeals Court, in Frullo v. Landenberger, 61 Mass. App. Ct. at 822, has signaled that a client can bring Chapter 93A claims in cases of alleged deceit or dishonesty. “There is no doubt that the provisions of G.L. c. 93A apply to attorneys.” Id. Not only does this create exposure to multiple damages and attorney’s fees, but it also gives the opportunity for the client to avoid the hurdle of expert testimony on negligence. Claims grounded in allegations of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation are not subject to the same expert testimony requirement applied to professional negligence claims. See Brown v. Gerstein, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 566-67 (1984). Resist the temptation to puff or exaggerate. The resulting leverage to settle (especially with the possibility of multiple damages) will be difficult to withstand.

2. Puffing during the pitch

Being straightforward applies as much to the pitch as it does to the post-engagement work. Competition for work can be very intense and you might be tempted to exaggerate your qualifications and minimize your estimate of projected cost. Again, resist the temptation. Any statement the lawyer or law firm makes regarding its experience and expertise is bound to become part of a disgruntled client’s complaint in a legal malpractice action. One recent and sensational example is the complaint filed by infamous UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld against Schertler & Onorato, LLP, the firm that represented him in his whistleblower suit. Birkenfeld now alleges that the firm and its attorneys “falsely represented themselves to [Birkenfeld] as experienced in and knowledgeable about federal whistleblowing laws and procedures” when, in reality, they had “very limited experience in the area.” Complaint at ¶ 14, Birkenfeld v. Schertler & Onorato, LLP, Civil Action No. 0008397-12 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2012). There are few better ways to undermine the defense of a legal malpractice claim than to have misrepresented to the client your familiarity with a particular type of transaction, your expertise in a particular area, or your trial experience. It will magnify any error the attorney may have made. Again, you and your firm will pay a premium for not wanting this case to be litigated in the public eye.

3. Maintain clear lines of communication with clients

Almost every malpractice claim arises out of a client feeling personally wronged by the attorney. This is why client communication is so important. Whenever an attorney receives client complaints about a lawyer’s strategic decision, the quality of work, or an unfortunate event, the attorney should respond in a way that both alleviates the concern and affirms to the client that you are on the same team. Not only will the attorney be fulfilling his ethical obligations under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, but he will also build a stronger rapport with the client and earn the client’s loyalty. A client pleased with a law firm’s responsiveness and care will be more understanding in the event that the matter sours.

4. Listen to, and get “buy-in,” from the client

Clients can have some pretty harebrained ideas, but every now and then… Whether good or bad, all client ideas and suggestions need to be addressed. If you do not think it is a great idea and you discuss the idea with the client, you can often explain the weaknesses and get the client to agree with your view. Even if you and the client continue to disagree, you are most likely talking about a judgment call, which is a very difficult basis for a malpractice claim. If you ignore the client, you will only alienate the client, and if it turns out that you were wrong, you are not going to want a public record of the client being a better lawyer than you.

5. Establish clear email protocols for your attorneys

Although the law in this area is not absolutely clear, there is a reasonable chance that if a client sues you for malpractice he will be able to get his hands on the internal emails relevant to his case or transaction. In almost every malpractice case, the most damaging document is not the contract, the court filing in the dispute, or an internal memo, but rather the informal emails among law firm attorneys. These are the communications where the smoking gun typically lies—either in the form of an admission of a mistake from one attorney to another or an error made in a hastily drafted intra-firm email. In Vlachos v. Weil, No. 11028/2009, 2011 WL 1348397, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 8, 2011), a New York trial court considered the admissibility of emails in which the attorney admitted that he was at fault in failing to ensure that his clients received the money they were owed as part of a stock deal. Whether those emails would come into evidence as a party admission or not, the malpractice suit caused the lawyer’s self-critique to become a matter of public record.

Finally, this probably goes without saying, but don’t say anything negative or unflattering about your client in an email–it will not reflect well on you and it will not be something you will want to see the light of day. In one federal court case, a former client of Day Pitney brought forth emails in which his lawyers demeaned him, demonstrating the lawyers’ “crude behavior.” Iannazzo v. Day Pitney LLP, No. 04 Civ. 7413(DC), 2007 WL 2020052, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2007). Although the client was ultimately unsuccessful in his malpractice suit, Day Pitney could not call the resolution a complete success if its attorneys were on record as antagonistic to and disrespectful of the firm’s clients.

6. Construct an oversight program for all cases.

Many malpractice claims arise from an attorney who is in over his or her head, either because the matter is outside the attorney’s area of expertise or is too complicated for less experienced attorneys. Certainly where an attorney who is out of his depth takes on a matter that does not end well, you can be sure the client will examine the situation closely. As a remedy, every law firm should consider instituting a formal program in which a senior attorney is assigned to each matter, and meets monthly with the day-to-day manager of the case, so the junior attorney can bounce ideas, issues, or concerns off of the senior attorney. Without a formal procedure in place, the junior lawyer will often feel uncomfortable raising concerns until it is too late.

* * * *

With the number of malpractice claims rising every year, most law firms will face the specter of malpractice suits. Under the legal standards applicable to malpractice claims, errors in judgment will often be quite defensible and will not be an embarrassment to the firm. The trick is to avoid exacerbating the situation by making mistakes that put the lawyer or the firm in a bad light and that make a confidential settlement the only real option.

A Word About Conflicts of Interest

Much has been written about the trouble law firms can find themselves in when they take on matters that involve a conflict of interest. Most lawyers understand the basic ethical prohibitions on being adverse to another client of the firm, having clearly divided loyalties, or disclosing confidential client information. However, there are many situations in which a client’s waiver or even simply disclosure to the client can prevent serious problems down the road. Where an undisclosed conflict exists, the client can paint almost any attorney error as being caused in part by the law firm’s conflicted loyalties. This is not where you want to be.



Robert L. Ullmann is a partner in the Litigation Department and Chair of the Government Investigations and White Collar Crime practice group at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP.

Jonathan L. Kotlier is also a litigation partner at Nutter, where he too is a member of the Government Investigation and White Collar Crime practice group. He is a former federal prosecutor.

The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution to this article of Christopher Lindstrom and Timothy Reppucci of Nutter.

Trusts & Estates Committees

  • Ad Hoc Spousal Elective Share Committee
    Ad Hoc Spousal Elective Share Committee

    Contact Information

    Deborah J. Manus

    Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

    (617) 439-2637

    Colin M. Korzec

    U.S Trust Corporation

    (617) 365-2724

  • Elder Law and Disability Planning Committee
    This committee addresses a variety of legal matters generally associated with elder clients, disabled clients and clients with disabled dependents. Areas covered include basic and sophisticated estate planning, Medicaid planning, disability, SSI, special needs and long-term care planning, guardianship and conservatorship.

    Contact Information

    Michael A. Stankavish

    North Shore Elder Law & Estate Planning

    (781) 979 9050

    Michael Couture

    Winston Law Group

  • Estate Planning Committee
    This committee provides a forum to exchange tax-planning ideas and discuss common problems among lawyers specializing in estate planning.

    Contact Information

    Andrew D. Rothstein

    Goulston & Storrs PC

    (617) 574-4089

    Kelly A. Aylward

    Tarlow, Breed, Hart & Rodgers, PC

    (617) 218-2038

  • Fiduciary Litigation Committee
    This committee focuses on a range of litigation matters involving trusts and estates. Areas covered include will and trust contests, disputes over the distribution of trust assets, instrument interpretation, trust modifications and accounting actions.

    Contact Information

    Jennifer Locke

    Goodwin Procter LLP

    (617) 570-1152

    Arthur W. Young

    U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management

    (617) 434-8934

  • New Developments Committee
    This group of lawyers works to track developments in trusts & estates law.

    Contact Information

    Jaclyn S. O'Leary

    Day Pitney LLP

    (617) 345-4682

    William K. Moran

    Bass, Doherty & Finks, PC

    (617) 783-0493

  • Practice Fundamentals Committee
    A part of the Trusts & Estates Section, the Estate Planning Fundamentals Committee focuses on the fundamentals of trusts and estates practice. Its monthly meetings typically feature a presentation on topics of interest to new practitioners. The committee welcomes practitioners with all levels of experience, but its activities are most valuable to trusts and estates practitioners with less than five years of experience.

    Contact Information

    Christopher D. Perry

    Northern Trust

    (617) 235-1835

    Jennifer Shingleton Ewing

    Ropes & Gray LLP

    (617) 951-7552

    Jennifer A. Civitella Hilario

    Tarlow, Breed, Hart & Rodgers, PC

    (617) 218-2028

  • Steering Committee
    The leadership committee of the Section organizes programs and discusses policy. To inquire about opportunities, please contact the Section Co-Chairs.
  • Tax Law Update Committee
    The Tax Law Update Committee tracks estate, GST and gift tax law developments throughout the year and presents a summary of those developments twice annually at the Year In Review and Mid-Year Review.

    Contact Information

    Amy R. Lonergan

    Bingham McCutchen LLP

    (617) 951-8822

    Alison Irving Glover

    Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

    (617) 3481661

  • Trusts & Estates Education Committee
    Help develop relevant and innovative educational sessions led by a diverse group of talented speakers who cover trusts and estates issues.

    Contact Information

    Leiha Macauley

    Day Pitney LLP

    (617) 345-4602

    Stacy K. Mullaney

    Fiduciary Trust Company, Boston

    (617) 549-0339

    Joseph L. Bierwirth

    Hemenway & Barnes LLP

    (617) 557-9728

  • Trusts and Estates Communications Committee
    This committee publishes information relevant to the trusts & estates bar. If you are interested in an editorial position or publishing an article, please contact us.

    Contact Information

    Nikki Marie Oliveira

    Bass, Doherty & Finks, PC

    (617) 787-5551

    Michelle Beth Kalas

    Riemer & Braunstein LLP

    (617) 523-9000

  • Trusts and Estates Public Policy Committee
    The BBA is very active in legislative and regulatory changes. Trusts and Estates attorneys are often asked to lend their expertise.

    Contact Information

    Peter M. Shapland

    Day Pitney LLP

    (617) 345-4766

    Mark E. Swirbalus

    Goulston & Storrs PC

    (617) 574-4119

  • Trusts and Estates Public Service Committee
    This committee, working in collaboration with the Probate & Family Court and the Massachusetts Bar Association created the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code Resource Desk. The aim of the Resource Desk is to assist attorneys with understanding the transition to the new Code and how it affects their practice. Volunteers will be providing advice and guidance to the attorneys.

    Contact Information

    Kerry Spindler

    Goulston & Storrs PC

    (617) 482-1776

    Tamara Sturges

    Law Office of David W. Adams, LLC