Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Fishman v. Brooks

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
487 N.E.2d 1377 (1986)


Facts

Larimore Brooks (plaintiff) filed a legal malpractice action against attorney Irving Fishman (defendant) after Fishman negligently caused Brooks to settle a personal injury claim for an amount well below what Brooks would have obtained at trial. While riding his bicycle, Brooks was struck by a car and seriously injured. Thereafter, Fishman, who had not litigated a case in over a decade, made no effort to examine the vehicle that struck Brooks or to investigate what the driver had been doing immediately prior to hitting Brooks. Further, Fishman engaged in minimal discovery with the opposing party and, instead, relied primarily on information supplied by the negligent driver’s insurance company. Once the matter was set for trial, Fishman attempted to collaborate with another attorney experienced in litigation but the negotiations fell through when Fishman refused to evenly split his fee with the lawyer. Fishman did not know that the negligent driver’s insurance policy limit was $1 million. Instead, Fishman told Brooks that only $250,000 was available. Brooks rejected the offer. Shortly before trial, Fishman informed Brooks that he could not win the case. Thus, Brooks was forced to settle the matter for $160,000 knowing Fishman was unprepared to litigate the matter. At the trial on the legal malpractice claim, the original personal injury action was litigated in an effort to ascertain what damages Brooks could have received had the matter proceeded to trial. An experienced tort attorney and a claims adjuster testified that a fair settlement value for Brooks’s injury claim was between $400,000 and $500,000. The jury found Fishman negligent in handling Brooks’s personal injury action and assessed damages of $525,000. The trial judge entered judgment for Brooks and reduced his damages to reflect his 10 percent contributory fault in the personal injury suit, the amount of medical expenses paid from the settlement, and the amount Brooks personally received from the settlement. Fishman appealed. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.