A second judge denied the defendants' motion initially, then granted summary judgment in their favor on reconsideration. The plaintiff claims that the presentation of an engineer's expert testimony was unnecessary to prove the causation element because the expert testimony of an attorney was sufficient to demonstrate the element of causation. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates, by reference to materials listed in Mass. When asserting a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving that its attorney committed a breach of the duty to use reasonable care, that the plaintiff suffered actual loss, and that the attorney's negligence proximately caused such loss. 25 Mass. App.
Proximate cause is an essential element of that proof.
38 Mass. App. In some circumstances, expert testimony is necessary to prove the element of causation in a legal malpractice claim. 14 Mass. App. The plaintiff claims that Donabed committed a breach of his duty to use reasonable care in negotiating a settlement with GZA by releasing claims he was unauthorized to settle, and, as a result, it lost the ability to recover from GZA for GZA's negligent exterior cleanup of the lagoon. Stated otherwise, the plaintiff was required to prove that GZA was negligent.