## Facts

- Loretta R. DeVaux fell while entering a store in Hanover, Massachusetts (July 17, 1971) and later underwent spinal disc surgery (May 11, 1973).
- DeVaux had previously used attorney Frank J. McGee for other matters and contacted his office about a potential tort claim arising from the fall.
- McGee’s secretary allegedly instructed DeVaux to (i) write a letter to McGee describing the accident and requesting legal advice, (ii) write to the store, and (iii) undergo a medical examination that the office helped arrange.
- DeVaux hand-delivered a letter to McGee’s office describing the accident and asking for legal advice; the letter was misfiled and McGee did not see it until about three years after the fall.
- DeVaux did not meet McGee in person about this matter, but periodically called his office seeking updates and was told her calls would be returned; they were not.
- No tort action was filed before the three-year statute of limitations expired; DeVaux sued McGee for malpractice, and McGee’s malpractice insurer was brought into the case.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, the facts required a legal conclusion that no attorney–client relationship existed before the tort limitations period expired.
2. Whether competing inferences from DeVaux’s communications with McGee’s office and reliance on office conduct created a genuine issue of material fact as to duty and the timing of any attorney–client relationship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment granting summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that the material facts did not compel, as a matter of law, a finding that no attorney–client relationship existed before the statute of limitations ran.
- The case was remanded for trial on whether an attorney–client relationship existed at the relevant time and the scope of any resulting duty.

## Legal Principles

- The existence and timing of an attorney–client relationship is usually a question of fact determined from parties’ conduct and communications, not only from a formal retainer.
- A client’s reasonable belief that a lawyer is providing representation, together with conduct by the lawyer or the lawyer’s staff that could induce that belief, may support finding an attorney–client relationship and corresponding duty.
- Summary judgment is improper where material facts and reasonable inferences permit more than one conclusion on a dispositive issue such as the existence of an attorney–client relationship.

## Conclusion

Because the record permitted a reasonable factfinder to conclude that DeVaux formed an attorney–client relationship with McGee (through prior dealings and office communications) before the limitations period expired, the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the malpractice claim had to be tried.


DeVaux v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 444 N.E.2d 355 (Mass. 1983)