## Facts

- Alfred Carbone, an inventor, sold his New Hampshire home under an arrangement with his son, Daniel, and daughter-in-law, Lisa, intending the proceeds would help buy a larger shared home that would accommodate Carbone and his laboratory.
- Carbone conveyed title to Lisa, who sold the home and received $69,812.41 at closing; Carbone then lived with Daniel and Lisa and later moved with them to Massachusetts.
- The relationship deteriorated; Carbone sought legal representation to recover his money and obtain relief tied to the family arrangement.
- Nancy S. Tierney represented Carbone in multiple related matters, including federal and state litigation and issues arising from Lisa’s bankruptcy.
- Carbone later sued Tierney for legal malpractice, alleging procedural and litigation-management failures that resulted in dismissals, lost opportunities to correct or appeal adverse rulings, and inadequate protection of his interests in the bankruptcy.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to Carbone on malpractice liability, sent damages to a jury, and the jury awarded about $175,000.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment on malpractice liability was proper where the attorney’s procedural omissions were undisputed.
2. Whether the evidence satisfied proximate-cause requirements under the “case within a case” doctrine for each category of claimed loss.
3. Whether the damages award included impermissibly speculative components, including losses dependent on uncertain outcomes in related litigation and bankruptcy proceedings.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld liability for legal malpractice on core aspects of Tierney’s representation where the record showed clear, undisputed procedural failures.
- The court reversed or limited portions of the damages determination to the extent the award rested on speculative causation or unproven assumptions about success in the underlying actions or bankruptcy proceedings.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s causation and damages analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires proof of: (1) an attorney-client relationship, (2) breach of the professional standard of care, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.
- In malpractice, causation is commonly established through a “case within a case,” requiring the client to prove a better result would probably have occurred absent the attorney’s negligence.
- Summary judgment on malpractice liability may be appropriate when the material facts regarding the attorney’s omissions are undisputed and no reasonable factfinder could conclude the conduct met the standard of care.
- Malpractice damages are limited to actual, non-speculative loss proximately caused by the breach; conjectural recovery or damages dependent on uncertain discretionary rulings are not recoverable.
- When alleged losses depend on outcomes in related proceedings (including bankruptcy), the client must show the favorable result was more likely than not, not merely possible.

## Conclusion

The court held that undisputed, basic procedural errors can establish malpractice liability as a matter of law, but the plaintiff must still prove—through the case-within-a-case framework—that each claimed item of loss would probably have been recovered in the underlying matters; damages based on uncertain litigation or bankruptcy outcomes cannot support a full verdict.


Carbone v. Tierney, 864 A.2d 308 (N.H. 2004)