Kiribati Seafood Co., LLC v. Dechert LLP, SJC 12287

Background

Kiribati Seafood purchased a fishing vessel that was damaged in dry dock in Tahiti; its insurer Lloyd's paid $1,763,803.71 and assigned its subrogation claim to Kiribati after a settlement.
Kiribati sued the Autonomous Port of Papeete in the Tahiti Commercial Court; the court awarded Kiribati the assigned subrogation amount but the port appealed to the Court of Appeals of Papeete.
On appeal the Court of Appeals deferred ruling on enforcement of the assignment and requested proof of the consideration paid for the assignment to avoid "double compensation." Dechert LLP (Kiribati’s counsel) had documentary proof but submitted only partial evidence; Dechert did not provide the full documents the court requested.
The Court of Appeals reduced Kiribati’s award by the amount of the assigned subrogation claim for lack of proof; Kiribati did not appeal to the Cour de cassation after Dechert advised against appealing and the receiver waived the appeal.
Kiribati sued Dechert in Massachusetts for legal malpractice alleging Dechert negligently failed to present available evidence to the Tahiti court, causing the $1.76M loss. The Superior Court granted Dechert summary judgment, finding the Court of Appeals’ legal error (if any) was a superseding cause.
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed: it held the court’s legal error (if foreseeable) is a concurrent proximate cause, and Dechert’s failure to submit available evidence was plainly negligent and could be a proximate cause of Kiribati’s loss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judicial error of law that follows an attorney’s omission is a superseding cause barring malpractice recovery	Kiribati: court error was foreseeable and Dechert’s omission in not submitting evidence was a concurrent proximate cause	Dechert: any judicial legal error is the superseding cause; correct-law trier would show court error was dispositive, so Dechert not liable	Court: judicial error is not superseding where it was foreseeable and the attorney could have mitigated it; concurrent causes possible
Whether Dechert breached the standard of care by not providing documents requested by the Court of Appeals	Kiribati: documents were in Dechert’s possession and would have allowed enforcement even under court’s demanded factual showing; failure was plainly negligent	Dechert: believed law was on its side and submission unnecessary; confidentiality argued	Court: failure to supply available evidence was plainly negligent; confidentiality clause did not bar disclosure
Whether Kiribati needed expert proof of negligence and proximate cause	Kiribati: negligence was obvious; no expert needed	Dechert: disputed need for expert and challenged Kiribati’s expert credentials	Court: expert testimony not required because negligence was obvious and causation could be shown objectively
Whether Kiribati failed to mitigate by not appealing to the Cour de cassation	Dechert: Kiribati should have appealed; failure to appeal reduces recoverable damages	Kiribati: Dechert advised against appeal and receiver waived appeal; Dechert cannot blame Kiribati	Court: burden on defendant to prove failure to mitigate; Dechert cannot meet it given its advice against appealing

Key Cases Cited

Global NAPs, Inc. v. Awiszus, 457 Mass. 489 (standard for attorney negligence and summary judgment review)
Pongonis v. Saab, 396 Mass. 1005 (attorney's duty to exercise reasonable care)
Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643 ("trial within a trial" to determine proximate cause in malpractice)
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47 (multiple concurrent proximate causes; superseding cause concept)
Kent v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 312 (intervening event as superseding cause severs causation)
Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90 (judicial error foreseeable → concurring cause; attorney duty to mitigate)
Skinner v. Stone, Raskin & Israel, 724 F.2d 264 (attorneys’ duty to take preemptive steps when judicial error is foreseeable)
Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 452 Mass. 1 (usefulness of substantial contributing factor test when multiple causes exist)