- Emergency Consultation Services
- Risk Management Services
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Ben Dunlap
The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed the requirements for expert testimony in an attorney malpractice suit, concluding lack of an expert opinion on “fair settlement value” was not fatal to the plaintiff’s case.
Marston v. Orlando, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 526 (2019) arose from injuries sustained by a worker on an offshore light tower. The injured worker retained counsel to pursue a workers’ compensation claim and also federal law claims against his employer and other parties. His attorneys negotiated a $7,500 lump-sum workers’ compensation settlement and a $200,000 settlement of the federal claims.
Following the settlement, the injured worker’s conservator brought an attorney malpractice action against the attorneys, alleging the settlement was inadequate in light of the severe injuries sustained, and that the attorneys “pressured” their client to accept an inadequate settlement to “disguise” their negligent handling of the case. Among other issues, the plaintiff contended the attorneys took certain positions in the workers’ compensation case that may have precluded recovery in the federal claims. The plaintiff proffered expert testimony regarding the requisite standard of care applicable to an attorney practicing in Massachusetts but no expert testimony on the issue of what a “fair settlement value” would have been in the underlying case. The trial court dismissed the case on the eve of trial, ruling the plaintiff was required to show the settlement was “unreasonable” and failed to do so because he lacked expert testimony regarding the “fair settlement value” of the claim.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that the trial judge misapplied the law as to the requirement for expert testimony. The Appeals Court, revisiting the standards set forth in Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643 (1986), agreed with the plaintiff and vacated the trial court’s dismissal, concluding that “[t]he absence of an expert opinion on fair settlement value was not fatal to the conservator’s legal malpractice case.”
The Appeals Court explained there are two ways to establish attorney malpractice based on a “negligent settlement.” One method rests on proving the “case within the case.” Using this method, the plaintiff must show first that the attorneys breached the standard of care in their settlement of the underlying claims, and second, that if the claims had not been settled, the client would have recovered more than he received in the negligently-obtained settlement. As in most jurisdictions, Massachusetts law requires expert testimony to prove the attorneys breached the standard of care (except where a breach is “obvious”), but using the “case within the case” method, an expert is not needed to prove what a fair settlement would have been. Instead, a jury could determine what the plaintiff would have recovered in the absence of a settlement – with or without expert testimony.
The second method of proving attorney malpractice relies on the “fair settlement value” of the underlying case. To prevail using this method, a plaintiff shows that absent the attorney’s negligence, he would have obtained a more favorable settlement. The damages are the difference between the settlement obtained and what the fair settlement value would have been in the absence of any malpractice. This method requires an expert to show what the fair settlement value would have been.
Because the plaintiff in Marston sought to prove malpractice using the first method – the “case within the case,” he was not required to present expert testimony to show the “fair settlement value.”
The Appeals Court’s decision brings into focus two distinct methods for proving an attorney malpractice case under Massachusetts law and clarifies the differing requirements for expert testimony with each method. It also highlights an issue that in many other jurisdictions is unsettled. Although most jurisdictions recognize some form of the “case within the case” method for proving an attorney malpractice claim, the treatment of the “fair settlement value” method varies widely. Some, like California, New Jersey, and New York, permit the use of the “fair settlement value” method but caution against damages that are too “speculative,” suggesting expert testimony may be needed establish the claim. Others, like Pennsylvania and Georgia, generally disfavor claims for “negligent settlement,” regardless of the theory pursued. Florida law permits recovery for “negligent settlement” but appears to favor the “case within the case” method of proof. The Marston case is a significant addition to this developing area of the law.
If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ben Dunlap at email@example.com.