Clark v. Rowe
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
428 Mass. 339 (1998)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Jean Clark (plaintiff) was a real estate investor who lost money on an investment and blamed her losses on her attorney, Harvey Rowe (defendant), and her banker, Shawn Potter (defendant). Clark sued Rowe and Potter, alleging malpractice. After trial, the judge directed a verdict for Potter. In a special verdict, the jury found in favor of Rowe on certain claims but also found that Rowe was negligent in representing Clark in connection with a loan refinance. The jury found that Rowe’s negligence was a substantial cause of Clark’s losses but that Clark was also negligent. The jury believed Clark was 70 percent negligent and Rowe was 30 percent negligent. Applying principles of comparative fault, the judge ordered judgment in favor of Rowe. Clark appealed the trial court’s decision and argued that comparative fault is not applicable to claims of legal malpractice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
