Holland v. Kantrovitz & Kantrovitz LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-104-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-705 Appeals Court LORI HOLLAND vs. KANTROVITZ & KANTROVITZ LLP & others.[1] No. 16-P-705. Suffolk. January 10, 2017. – August 15, 2017. Present: Grainger, Wolohojian, & Neyman, JJ.[2] Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Attorney at Law, Malpractice, Negligence. Negligence, Attorney at law. Limitations, Statute of. Bankruptcy, Discharge. Judicial Estoppel. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 29, 2013. The case was heard by Linda E. Giles, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Luke Rosseel for the plaintiff. Daniel R. Sonneborn for the defendants. WOLOHOJIAN, J. In September 2009, the plaintiff retained the defendants as personal injury counsel to represent her with respect to serious injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on ice the year before. Approximately one month later, acting pro se, she filed for bankruptcy protection, and received a bankruptcy discharge in early 2010. Thereafter, in 2011, the defendants allowed the statute of limitations on the personal injury claim to expire without filing suit. This legal malpractice suit followed. The question on appeal is whether the plaintiff’s malpractice claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment on the ground that the bankruptcy action (or the position the plaintiff took in it) foreclosed them. We reverse. Reserving additional facts to the analysis that follows, we recite here only the core facts, and do so in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34, 38 (2005). On January 15, 2008, the plaintiff, a State employee, was seriously injured when she slipped and fell on ice outside the building in which she worked. The building was owned and/or maintained by a private entity, Northland Investment Corporation. The ice had accumulated because of a defective gutter and had not been salted. The plaintiff’s injuries were sufficiently severe that she lost 410 scheduled work days, and even as late as September 2012, she remained unable to work full time. During the workers’ compensation proceedings relating to her injuries, the plaintiff was approached by defendant Martin Kantrovitz’s associate, who told her that the defendants would like to represent her. She agreed and, by September 9, 2009, had retained the defendants to represent her as personal injury counsel. The plaintiff alleges […]