X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Lizzy McLellan

Lizzy McLellan writes about the Pennsylvania legal community and the business of law at firms of all sizes. Contact her at lmclellan@alm.com. On Twitter: @LizzyMcLell

More from this author

Law Firms Mentioned

<img class="alignnone wp-image-2293 size-full" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Dechert
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Lane Powell

/uploads/sites/402/2017/10/Dechert-Sign.jpg" width="498" height="372" /> Massachusetts highest court has revived a legal malpractice suit against Dechert, ruling that the firm could have done more to prevent a French courts legal error. Kiribati Seafood Co. alleged that Dechert negligently failed to provide an appellate court in Tahiti���an island territory in French Polynesia���with evidence that the Tahitian court deemed necessary for Kiribatis claim. The company had originally retained two Paris lawyers from <a href="http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=900005552316/For-One-Law-Firm-an-Unquiet-Death" target="_blank">now-defunct Coudert Brothers</a>, both of whom continued to represent Kiribati when they <a href="http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=900005545427/Dechert-Acquires-Most-of-Coudert-Brothers-Paris-Office" target="_blank">left Coudert to join Dechert in 2005</a>. A Superior Court judge in Massachusetts had granted summary judgment to Dechert, ruling that the Tahitian court erred under French law in denying Kiribatis claim. Even if Dechert was negligent in its failure to file the evidence, the courts error superseded, the Superior Court said. But the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, stating in an <a href="http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/12287.pdf" target="_blank">opinion filed Wednesday</a> that the Tahitian courts error was a concurrent, not superseding, cause of Kiribatis claim being denied. "Where an attorney makes a reasonable and correct argument of law and loses because of judicial error that was not foreseeable, the attorney cannot be found negligent for failing to prevent or mitigate that legal error," Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote. "But where the judicial error is foreseeable, such as where a judge or an appellate court has indicated an intention to rule in a manner that the attorney believes to be an error of law, then an attorney has an obligation to take reasonable and prudent steps to prevent or mitigate that error." The Dechert lawyers had worked with Kiribati on litigation related to a damaged fishing vessel, including a subrogation claim, and a claim against the Port of Papeete in Tahiti where the damage occurred. When a lower court ruled against the court and awarded $1.76 million to Kiribati, the port appealed and alleged unjust enrichment, as Kiribati was already assigned a $1.76 million subrogation claim. The first Tahitian appellate court deferred a decision on that claim, giving Kiribati time to prove that it had paid consideration for the assignment. Once the first appellate decision came down, Dechert partner Xavier Nyssen, a past co-chair of the firms international dispute resolution practice, requested evidence from Kiribatis general counsel, who provided four documents to show the consideration paid. But Dechert only submitted one of the four documents, Gants opinion said. One of the documents left out, according to the opinion, was proof that Kiribati paid attorney fees that its insurer was supposed to pay. In May 2011, the Tahitian court of appeals issued a final decision, reducing the amount of Kiribatis award by $1.76 million. "The court specifically noted that Kiribati had failed to provide any evidence that it had paid attorney fees that Lloyds was obligated to pay, or that it had released Lloyds from legal claims that Kiribati otherwise could have brought in a court of law," Gants wrote. In July 2013, Kiribati sued Dechert alleging professional negligence, and��sought to recover the��$1.76 million subrogation claim it was denied. According to Gants opinion, Dechert argued that Kiribati should have prevailed even without the proof of consideration. "The fundamental flaw in this argument is that a plaintiffs loss need not have only one proximate cause; there can be multiple concurrent proximate causes," Gants wrote. A lawyer for Kiribati, John Neeleman, a commercial litigation partner at Kilpatrick Townsend &amp; Stockton <a href="http://www.townsend.com/en/Knowledge_Center/Newsroom/News_Releases/2017/06/GPaytonJNeelemanJoinKTSEA.aspx" target="_blank">who joined the firm in June</a> from Lane Powell in Seattle,��said he was not surprised by the Supreme Judicial Courts ruling. He said the case will go back to the trial court level, but he feels that the Supreme Judicial Courts ruling "adjudicates the entire case." "We were actually very surprised at the trial court���s ruling," he said. "Its not good public policy." Megan Deluhery of Boston-based Todd &amp; Weld, who also represents Kiribati in the dispute, said she expects the Massachusetts courts decision to be cited in future malpractice cases. "The message to practitioners is clear, your duties do not end if a judge or court makes a mistake of law," she said. "The prudent practitioner will adapt and make the best case for its client that it can." A spokeswoman for Dechert, which is being represented by Goulston &amp; Storrs, declined to comment on the matter. <em>Lizzy McLellan writes about the Pennsylvania legal community and the business of law at firms of all sizes. Contact her at lmclellan@alm.com. On Twitter: @LizzyMcLellTLI</em> <

  • Dechert
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Lane Powell

>

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"I regularly see the exit doors of meeting rooms and courthouses being pushed open by lawyers whose romanticized view of the world has just been displaced by realism. Contention, together with its cousin, wish-fulfillment, are often the root cause."

Learn More

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.