## Facts

- Brooks was seriously injured when a car struck him while he rode a bicycle on Route 9 in Newton, Massachusetts.
- Brooks retained Fishman, a Massachusetts attorney, to pursue a personal injury claim arising from the accident.
- Evidence supported findings that Fishman lacked recent trial experience, delayed filing and service without justification, and performed minimal investigation and discovery.
- Fishman incorrectly advised Brooks that the defendant’s insurance coverage was $250,000 when the policy limit was $1 million.
- Brooks rejected a $250,000 offer; as trial approached, Fishman stated Brooks could not win and was not prepared to try the case.
- Brooks settled for $160,000, claiming he did so because Fishman’s deficient preparation and advice left him no realistic alternative.
- After settlement, Fishman sued Brooks for declaratory relief seeking an additional fee based on alleged “savings” from negotiating down medical bills; Fishman later abandoned that claim.
- Brooks counterclaimed for legal malpractice and abuse of process.

## Issues

1. Whether a malpractice trial may litigate the underlying personal injury action’s liability and damages to determine what the client probably would have recovered absent the attorney’s negligence.
2. Whether the evidence supported findings that Fishman’s negligence caused Brooks to accept an inadequate settlement and supported damages measured by the claim’s probable value minus amounts actually received and other offsets.
3. Whether Fishman’s declaratory judgment action concerning fees supported a verdict for abuse of process.
4. Whether challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment for Brooks on malpractice and abuse of process.
- The court held it was proper to admit extensive evidence about the underlying accident, injuries, liability, and damages to determine what Brooks likely would have recovered but for Fishman’s negligence.
- The evidence permitted a finding that Fishman’s negligent preparation and incorrect advice pressured Brooks into an inadequate settlement.
- The court approved calculating damages by reference to the underlying claim’s reasonable value, with reductions for contributory negligence and offsets for amounts already paid or received.
- The evidence supported the abuse-of-process verdict based on Fishman’s fee-related declaratory action.
- No reversible error was shown in the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings or instructions.

## Legal Principles

- In litigation-related legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove a “case within a case,” establishing the likely outcome and value of the underlying claim to show causation and damages.
- An attorney may be liable when negligent investigation, preparation, or advice causes a client to settle for materially less than the client likely would have obtained with competent representation.
- Malpractice damages for a forced or improperly induced settlement may be measured as the difference between the underlying claim’s fair value and the amount actually realized, adjusted for contributory negligence and appropriate offsets to avoid duplication.
- Abuse of process requires an ulterior purpose and use of process in a manner improper in the regular conduct of proceedings; initiating an action primarily to obtain collateral advantage can satisfy these elements.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed verdicts finding that Fishman’s negligent handling of the personal injury matter caused Brooks to settle for an inadequate amount and that Brooks could prove causation and damages by trying the underlying claim within the malpractice case; it also upheld liability for abuse of process arising from Fishman’s fee-related declaratory action and sustained the trial court’s damages reductions for contributory negligence and offsets.


Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1377 (Mass. 1986)