Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneynegligenceliabilityappealtrialsummary judgmentburden of proofmalpracticelegal malpracticedefense attorney

plaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialaffidavitsummary judgmentmalpractice

Related Cases

Glenn v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E.2d 783, 4 A.L.R.5th 1060

Facts

Glenn, the former criminal defendant, was convicted of arson, but the Appeals Court reversed his conviction due to an error in the judge's charge, which had not been preserved for appellate review by Glenn's trial counsel. Glenn had served fourteen months of his sentence before the Commonwealth chose not to retry him. He subsequently filed a legal malpractice action against his former trial counsel, claiming that the attorney's negligence cost him his freedom.

In this action, Glenn seeks to recover against his former trial counsel for malpractice that he claims cost him fourteen months of freedom.

Issue

Whether the former criminal defendant must prove his innocence of the charge against which his defense attorney defended him in a legal malpractice action.

The issue of what might have happened if the defendant attorney had objected promptly to the error in the judge's charge must be decided on an objective basis.

Rule

A former criminal defendant bringing a legal malpractice action against his attorney is required to prove his innocence of the charge by a preponderance of the evidence.

Courts have generally required that a former criminal defendant prove his innocence of the crime charged as an element of his claim that his former trial counsel was negligent.

Analysis

The court analyzed the implications of requiring a former criminal defendant to prove his innocence in a malpractice action, noting that this requirement could relieve the attorney of liability for harm caused by negligence. The court emphasized that the burden of proof should reflect the need to establish a causal connection between the attorney's alleged negligence and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The affidavit of the trial judge in Commonwealth v. Glenn does not support the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorney.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the summary judgment for the defendant attorney should not have been entered, and the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Because summary judgment for the defendant should not have been entered, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Who won?

The former criminal defendant, Glenn, prevailed because the court found that genuine issues of fact existed that precluded summary judgment.

The Appeals Court reversed the plaintiff Glenn's conviction of arson because of an error in the judge's charge.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148, 128 S.Ct. 761, 169 L.Ed.2d 627, 76 USLW 4039, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,556, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 559, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 569, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 46

City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 211 F.Supp.3d 1058

Vallabharpurapu v. Burger King Corp., 276 F.R.D. 611, 80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1506

United States v. Supreme Court of New Mexico, 839 F.3d 888

Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane, Aetna, Federal Ins. Co., 632 F.Supp. 418, 54 USLW 2582