Court Opinion

ID: 9724722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:10:43.152909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.229496
License: Public Domain

Liacos, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the court that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. I write separately because I disagree with the court’s statement that the plaintiff, formerly a criminal defendant, should have to prove that he was innocent of the crime with which he was charged in the underlying criminal proceeding.
A tort plaintiff seeking damages for legal malpractice must establish that: (1) the attorney had a duty toward the plaintiff; (2) the attorney breached the duty by failing to ex*709ercise the proper degree of care; (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. See Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 646-647 (1986); Barry, Legal Malpractice in Massachusetts, 63 Mass. L. Rev. 15 (1978). The court concludes that, in order for a plaintiff in a malpractice action to establish proximate cause (where the alleged negligence was not “obviously the cause of the defendant’s conviction,” ante at 705), he “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that the negligence of the attorney defendant caused him harm, but also that he is innocent of the crime charged.” Ante at 707.
A criminal trial is an adjudication of a defendant’s legal guilt. As a result, a jury’s verdict does not address necessarily the issue of a defendant’s actual guilt. Two examples suffice to make the point. A defendant who committed the crime may be acquitted if the jury, based on the evidence introduced by the prosecution, had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s legal guilt. Or, alternatively, a defendant may be acquitted because evidence of guilt is suppressed due to it being tainted by some constitutional violation by law enforcement personnel. Since a criminal defendant’s actual guilt (as opposed to his legal guilt) is not the determinative issue in the underlying criminal proceeding, he should not be required to prove his lack of actual guilt in order to succeed in a malpractice action.
The court’s requirement that plaintiffs in a malpractice action prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they did not actually commit the crime with which they were charged, imposes upon such plaintiffs an unnecessary burden, which has no basis in tort law. In order to establish proximate cause in a tort action, a plaintiff typically must prove that there was a causal connection between the alleged negligence of the defendant and the injury suffered by the plaintiff. See Falvey v. Hamelburg, 347 Mass. 430, 435 (1964); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 430-433 (1965). The plaintiff in the instant case alleges that the jury failed to acquit him because of his attorney’s negligence. The plaintiff’s burden should simply be to show that, if it had not been for his at*710torney’s negligence, the result of the criminal trial would have been different. See Mylar v. Wilkinson, 435 So. 2d 1237, 1239 (Ala. 1983); Cooper v. Simon, 719 S.W.2d 463, 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986), cert, denied, 482 U.S. 918 (1987); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St. 3d 103, 105 (1989).
The court argues that the plaintiff should be required to prove his innocence because “[a] person who is guilty need not be compensated for what happened to him as a result of his former attorney’s negligence,” ante at 707. The only finding, however, regarding the criminal defendant’s legal guilt was vacated by the Appeals Court. See Commonwealth v. Glenn, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 440 (1987). The fact that the Appeals Court noted in its opinion that “[a] properly instructed jury could have found the [criminal] defendant guilty” (emphasis supplied), ante at 705, citing Commonwealth v. Glenn, supra at 444, is not enough to justify imposing on the plaintiff the burdensome requirement of proving his innocence.
I agree with the court that the public has a strong interest in encouraging the representation of criminal defendants. I do not believe that this public interest will be threatened significantly by imposing on criminal defendants no greater requirement of proof than is imposed on other plaintiffs who sue in tort. Plaintiffs in a malpractice action will still have to show that the defendant attorney did not exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill in the performance of his duties. See Fishman v. Brooks, supra at 646; Caverly v. McOwen, 123 Mass. 574 (1878). If a plaintiff in a malpractice action can establish that the defendant attorney failed to meet the standard of care, he will then have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the result of the criminal trial probably would have been different if the attorney had not been negligent. The plaintiff will have to show that the attorney’s negligence deprived him of the opportunity to raise a defense or take action which would have altered the outcome of the trial. Cf. Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 98 (1974). In cases where the evidence against the criminal defendant is strong, for example, a negligent failure to chai*711lenge the admission of evidence, or to cross-examine a particular witness, may not be enough to convince a trier of fact that the criminal defendant would have been acquitted if the attorney had not been negligent. There is no reason to believe that this application of the ordinary proximate cause requirement will deter attorneys from representing criminal defendants any more than physicians are deterred from treating patients because of the threat of malpractice suits. In any event, the public not only has an interest in encouraging the representation of criminal defendants, but it also has an interest in making sure that the representation is, at the very least, not negligent.