## Facts

- In 1981, David Thomas represented Gerrine Bethea and her minor daughter, Marsharina, in a lead-paint poisoning matter involving multiple Baltimore City rental properties.
- Thomas filed suit against three landlord defendants but never obtained service on W.H. Groscup & Sons, Inc., the owner of a key exposure property (1217 E. Preston Street).
- In 1983, two served defendants offered $2,500 to settle on the condition that Bethea execute a general release of all three defendants, including the unserved Groscup, which paid nothing.
- Thomas communicated and allegedly recommended acceptance; Gerrine executed the release for herself and Marsharina, extinguishing any claim against Groscup.
- Later evidence suggested the Groscup claim was strong and likely collectible, including indications that Groscup knew of elevated blood-lead levels before leasing, the premises had deteriorated paint, and Groscup had about $300,000 in liability insurance.
- In 1995, Marsharina sued Thomas for malpractice, alleging negligent handling and negligent advice to accept an inadequate settlement that surrendered a valuable claim for no consideration.

## Issues

1. When may an attorney be liable for malpractice based on advice recommending acceptance of a settlement?
2. In a “lost cause of action” malpractice case, what proof is required to submit to the jury the probable value of the lost underlying claim and the collectibility of that recovery?

## Decision

- The jury found Thomas’s settlement recommendation fell below the standard of care, found a reasonable minimum settlement would have been $25,000, and awarded Marsharina $125,000 for loss of the opportunity to recover for injuries tied to the Groscup property.
- The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), ruling the evidence was insufficient to establish the probable underlying judgment and collectibility.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed the JNOV and reinstated the verdict.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed, holding the evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to find both negligent settlement advice and damages, including collectibility.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney is liable for negligent settlement advice only if the recommendation is one that no reasonable attorney—after reasonable investigation of law and facts and with knowledge of the same facts—would have made.
- Legal-malpractice claims for loss of an underlying action require proof of (a) a meritorious underlying claim, (b) causation (loss of the claim due to counsel’s negligence), and (c) recoverable damages reflecting what likely would have been obtained absent the negligence.
- A plaintiff need not present precise, expert-quantified proof of the exact value of the lost claim; it is enough to present evidence from which a reasonable jury can infer probable value.
- Collectibility is part of the damages showing, but it may be proven circumstantially (including by evidence of liability insurance) and assessed by the jury.
- JNOV is improper where, viewing evidence and inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, reasonable jurors could differ on negligence, causation, damages, or collectibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that settlement advice is actionable only under a demanding “no reasonable attorney” standard and that, in lost-claim malpractice cases, juries may infer the probable value and collectibility of the lost recovery from competent evidence; the reinstated $125,000 verdict therefore stood.


Thomas v. Bethea, 351 Md. 513, 718 A.2d 1187 (Md. 1998)