## Facts

- A Global NAPs, Inc. employee sued Global under the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act (MMLA), alleging she was promised 11 weeks of maternity leave but was terminated when she did not return after 8 weeks.
- Global’s trial counsel (Awiszus, Kerman, and their firms) defended the case, which resulted in a jury verdict exceeding \$1 million against Global.
- In the underlying trial, the jury was instructed consistent with an MCAD guideline that required an employer intending to limit leave to 8 weeks to notify the employee before leave began; otherwise, the employee could claim the longer leave she reasonably expected.
- Global’s counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and later failed to obtain relief based on excusable neglect; appellate courts refused to accept the late appeal.
- Global sued its former attorneys for legal malpractice (negligence), breach of contract, and loss of chance, seeking damages tied to the lost appellate opportunity and the paid judgment.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding Global could not show that a timely appeal would have succeeded, and dismissed Global’s complaint.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorneys breached the duty of care and contractual obligations by failing to file a timely notice of appeal and failing to establish excusable neglect.
2. Whether Global could prove causation and damages by showing that a timely appeal in the underlying MMLA case would have resulted in reversal or material modification of the judgment.
3. Whether the MMLA’s “not exceeding eight weeks” language limited job-protected leave to eight weeks absent contractual/policy extension, and whether the MCAD guideline impermissibly expanded that statutory limit.
4. Whether, and to what extent, loss-of-chance damages are available for a lost appellate opportunity in a legal malpractice action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the summary judgment entered for the defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held, as a matter of law, that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to file a timely appeal and failing to demonstrate excusable neglect.
- The court concluded that a timely appeal would have succeeded because the underlying verdict rested on an incorrect interpretation of the MMLA.
- The court ruled that the MCAD guideline could not override the MMLA’s clear eight-week limitation by conditioning the limitation on advance employer notice.
- Liability on negligence and breach of contract was established as a matter of law; remaining matters included damages and any loss-of-chance issues.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and actual loss; in litigation-related malpractice, the plaintiff generally must prove a “case within a case.”
- When the likely success of the lost appeal turns on a pure question of law, the court in the malpractice action may decide that question on summary judgment to determine causation.
- The MMLA’s plain text (“not exceeding eight weeks”) limits job-protected maternity leave to eight weeks unless a longer period is provided by contract or employer policy.
- Administrative guidelines may receive deference, but they cannot contradict clear statutory language or enlarge statutory rights beyond the statute’s terms.
- Missing an appellate deadline without establishing excusable neglect constitutes a breach of the standard of care where the client loses a meritorious appellate remedy.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court held that Global’s attorneys were legally responsible for missing the appeal deadline because a timely appeal would have reversed the adverse MMLA verdict, and it rejected reliance on an agency guideline that effectively extended job-protected leave beyond the statute’s eight-week limit.


Global NAPs, Inc. v. Awiszus, 457 Mass. 489, 930 N.E.2d 1262 (2010)