The Massachusetts Appeals Court has revived a legal malpractice lawsuit that a now-defunct youth soccer company brought against its former outside law firm, Law360 reported. The company, Massachusetts Premier Soccer LLC, which did business as Global Premier Soccer, claims the Boston firm Burns & Levinson LLP and partner Perry A. Henderson Jr. should have told the company’s board about a federal visa fraud investigation before agents raided its headquarters in 2019.
A Superior Court judge had thrown the case out in June 2025. Law360 reported that the Appeals Court reinstated the claims. We were not able to obtain the Appeals Court’s decision, so we cannot say how broadly it ruled. The case now returns to the trial court. The firm and Henderson have not been found liable for anything.
What the company claims
We read the Superior Court decision, Massachusetts Premier Soccer LLC v. Burns & Levinson LLP, No. 2084CV00398-BLS2, on CourtListener. According to that decision:
- GPS, a for-profit youth soccer business, used many foreign coaches on temporary visas. Federal agents began investigating its visa use in 2018.
- Burns & Levinson did employment, tax and general corporate work for GPS from 2012 through late 2019, but never filed visa petitions. Other firms handled the company’s immigration work.
- The company’s chief executive shared some information about the apparent investigation with Henderson. In December 2018, he forwarded emails from GPS’s immigration lawyer warning that “[t]here are symptoms of a serious investigation.”
- No one at the firm told the rest of the board. On October 8, 2019, federal agents executed a search warrant at GPS headquarters. GPS says the surprise raid badly harmed its reputation and business, and that the board could have managed the situation if it had known.
The rule at the center of the case
The company’s negligence claim rests on Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.13(b), which governs lawyers who represent organizations. As quoted in the decision, if a company’s lawyer “knows” that an officer is acting in a way that violates a legal obligation to the organization, or violates the law in a way that “reasonably might be imputed to the organization,” and that is “likely to result in substantial injury,” the lawyer generally “shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization,” up to the board if warranted.
Judge Kenneth W. Salinger ruled that the firm had no such duty, for three reasons:
- Henderson did not have “actual knowledge” of any wrongdoing. “All that Henderson knew was that federal agents were conducting some kind of investigation into GPS’s visa program.”
- The investigation did not concern “a matter related to the representation,” because the firm did not do the visa work.
- The information came from the CEO himself, and no one knew he was a target before the raid. Telling the board “was the CEO’s responsibility,” the judge wrote.
Rule 1.13(b) “does not impose a duty on outside corporate counsel to directly inform the board of directors any time they learn that the CEO is aware of an apparent federal investigation,” the decision said. The judge also ruled for the firm on conflict-of-interest and billing claims, noting GPS did not respond to those arguments.
Whether a lawyer owed a duty is a question of law, the judge noted, citing Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., 457 Mass. 234, 240 (2010), which we verified on CourtListener. That is why the case could be decided on summary judgment.
The criminal case behind it
The federal investigation produced guilty pleas. GPS’s former chief operating officer, Justin Capell, pleaded guilty in March 2021 to conspiracy to commit visa fraud, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston announced. Prosecutors said the scheme involved fraudulent visa petitions on behalf of at least seven professional soccer teams to get visas for GPS’s foreign coaches, who in fact worked only as youth coaches. A former employee pleaded guilty in May 2020 to destroying records, according to the same announcement. Nothing in the Superior Court decision suggests Burns & Levinson was involved in the visa petitions.
Why it matters to companies
The case asks when a company’s outside lawyer has to go over the head of the executive who hired them. The trial judge read Rule 1.13(b) narrowly: it requires actual knowledge, and it applies to matters connected to the lawyer’s own work. With the claims reinstated, the trial court will have to take them up again.
Frequently asked questions
What is Rule 1.13(b)?
A Massachusetts ethics rule for lawyers representing organizations. If the lawyer knows of conduct by an officer that violates the law or a duty to the organization and is likely to cause it substantial injury, the lawyer generally must refer the matter to higher authority, up to the board.
Did the Appeals Court find the law firm liable?
No. According to Law360, it reinstated the claims, which sends the case back to the trial court. No court has found the firm or Henderson liable.
What happened to Global Premier Soccer?
The U.S. Attorney’s Office described it in 2021 as a now-defunct youth soccer organization formerly based in Waltham.
Sources: Massachusetts Premier Soccer LLC v. Burns & Levinson LLP, No. 2084CV00398-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 6, 2025), read on CourtListener; Law360, 2026 (Appeals Court reinstatement); U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, press release, March 10, 2021. The Appeals Court decision was not available to us. Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., 457 Mass. 234 (2010), verified on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.