Thomas M. Brooks v. John R. Lemieux, 157 A.3d 798

Thomas Brooks was fired from Bath Iron Works in 2006; his union grievance was not taken to arbitration and he sued BIW and the union in federal court for breach of the CBA and discrimination, represented by Attorney John Lemieux.
Lemieux missed deadlines and violated Local Rule 56 procedures when opposing summary judgment: one opposition was filed one day late, another motion to enlarge time was filed more than 30 days late and denied.
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for BIW and the union; the district court and the First Circuit affirmed, disposing of Brooks’s federal claims.
Brooks sued Lemieux in Maine Superior Court for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging failure to timely/properly oppose summary judgment, obtain affidavits, and conduct discovery.
The Superior Court granted Lemieux summary judgment, finding Brooks failed to present prima facie evidence of causation: the sole proffered expert affidavit (Julie Moore) was disregarded as contradictory and conclusory, and no admissible expert established that Lemieux’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Brooks’s loss.
On appeal, the Maine Law Court affirmed, holding expert proof of causation was required and Moore’s affidavit—even if considered—was too conclusory and lacked specific evidence showing that absent counsel’s errors Brooks would have prevailed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court applied the correct malpractice standard	Brooks: modified standard applies because attorney errors deprived him of a forum	Lemieux: ordinary malpractice standard applies because claims were litigated on the merits	Court: ordinary malpractice standard applies (not Niehoff modified standard)
Whether expert testimony on causation was required	Brooks: expert testimony unnecessary; causation could be a jury issue	Lemieux: expert required to show what would have happened absent negligence	Court: expert testimony required to establish causation in this context
Whether Moore’s affidavit could create a triable issue on causation	Brooks: Moore’s affidavit shows more-likely-than-not that he would have prevailed	Lemieux: affidavit contradicts deposition and is conclusory	Court: trial court erred to the extent it said Moore contradicted her deposition, but error harmless because affidavit is conclusory and lacks specific evidentiary basis
Whether Brooks produced prima facie evidence of causation to survive summary judgment	Brooks: identified counsel’s procedural failures that caused loss	Lemieux: Brooks failed to identify what evidence would have changed outcome; mere possibility is insufficient	Court: Brooks failed to present competent, non-conclusory expert evidence linking omissions to loss; summary judgment affirmed

Zip Lube, Inc. v. Coastal Sav. Bank, 709 A.2d 733 (Me. 1998) (disallowing affidavits that directly contradict prior clear deposition testimony to create a genuine issue)
Pawlendzio v. Haddow, 148 A.3d 713 (Me. 2016) (summary judgment standard and need for non-speculative causation evidence)
Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.C., 718 A.2d 186 (Me. 1998) (malpractice causation requires retrying the underlying claim; substantial-factor causation standard)
Niehoff v. Shankman & Assocs. Legal Ctr., P.A., 763 A.2d 121 (Me. 2000) (modified malpractice standard when attorney’s failure denies plaintiff access to a factfinder)
Johnson v. Carleton, 765 A.2d 571 (Me. 2001) (affirming summary judgment where malpractice claim lacked expert causation proof)
Spickler v. York, 566 A.2d 1385 (Me. 1989) (mere possibility of a better result is insufficient; plaintiff must show substantial factor causation)
Allen v. McCann, 120 A.3d 90 (Me. 2015) (expert assertions without detail do not permit jury to assess damages or causation without speculation)
Bozelko v. Papastavros, 147 A.3d 1023 (Conn. 2016) (describing the "case-within-a-case" method for proving causation in legal malpractice)