Bartle v. Berry
953 N.E.2d 243
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Two attorneys (Bartle and Schlichtmann) and one of their law firms and a former class representative (Ehrlich) sued defendant attorneys after Nestle Waters North America, Inc. settlement talks collapsed due to cocounsel's class actions against Nestle.
- Lead counsel pursued a consumer class action; conflicts were addressed by a joint litigation agreement with the competitors and lead counsel.
- Nestle offered up to $20 million to settle all claims; disagreements over settlement vs. litigation caused Ehrlich to terminate certain cocounsel, and then cocounsel filed class actions against Nestle in multiple jurisdictions.
- Vermont Pure’s attorney Berry was authorized to file the class actions; Berry’s actions affected the settlement, triggering later disputes over loyalties and potential interference with fees and damages.
- Courts granted summary judgment for defendant attorneys, finding their duty was to their clients (the consumer class) and that filing the class actions did not constitute improper means to interfere with Bartle/Schlichtmann’s fee interests; Ehrlich's individual damages claims were not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant attorneys’ class actions constitute improper interference? | Bartle/Schlichtmann rely on improper means to steal fee prospects. | Filing class actions protected by attorney loyalty to clients and litigation privilege. | No; filing class actions did not amount to improper means. |
| Whether civil conspiracy claim lies without actionable underlying tort. | Bartle/Schlichtmann allege conspiracy based on interference. | Public policy shields cocounsel; no underlying tort. | Conspiracy fails; underlying tort not established. |
| Was Ehrlich owed an individual duty by Sobol/Ivey after termination of representation? | Ehrlich's damages arise from loss of Nestle settlement. | ||
| Duty to the class as a whole; no individual duty after termination. | No individual action; duty remained with the class. | ||
| Did Rule 60(b)(6) relief justify vacating judgments? | Finding Nestle’s offer was reasonable supports relief. | Motion does not alter the interference analysis; not material. | No reversible error; 60(b)(6) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamare v. Basbanes, 418 Mass. 274 (Mass. 1994) (nonclient duty of care required for reliance in exceptions to attorney duties)
- Walsh v. O’Neill, 350 Mass. 586 (Mass. 1966) (unlawful conduct required for interference in attorney–client context; policy reasons)
- Cavicchi v. Koski, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 654 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (interference with business relations requires improper means)
- KACT, Inc. v. Rubin, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (illegality of means evaluated in context of relationship; not automatic for rule breaches)
- Sullivan v. Birmingham, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 359 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981) (attorney’s duties and privilege considerations in communications)
- Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 387 Mass. 589 (Mass. 1982) (litigation privilege extends to civil liability defenses)
- Spinner v. Nutt, 417 Mass. 549 (Mass. 1994) (limits on liability where independent duties conflict with client loyalty)
- Ehrlich v. Stern, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (discusses cocounsel conflicts and duties in related actions)