Legal Malpractice and the Consumer Protection Law, MGL Chapter 93A

Many attorneys call us and ask what the relationship is between the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, the Consumer Protection Statute, and legal malpractice. The simple answer is that because clients are “consumers” of the lawyer’s trade or professional work, the law applies. A successful 93A case can result in double or treble damages plus attorney fees.

93A requirements are outlined in of the Consumer Protection Statute, Section 9. To initiate a 93A case you must send a written demand letter to the attorney specifying and “reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive act or practice relied upon and the injury suffered.” You will need an attorney to draft and send the 93A letter as they are complicated and must stand up to Court scrutiny if you want multiple damages and attorney fees.

The Supreme Judicial Court has held that attorneys can be held accountable under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, and that the scope can be expanded to include negligent as well as intentional misrepresentations. It has been held that Chapter 93A, Section 2 includes the practice of law as “trade or commerce” which prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” A lawyer’s liability for multiple damages and attorney fees may generally be found under Chapter 93A, section 9.

To add a layer of confusion, the attorney’s malpractice insurance carrier is responsible to the client/consumer under 93A and Chapter 176D as well. This is because, once you can show clear liability and collectability, the attorney’s malpractice insurance company is obligated to make a reasonable offer of settlement. In many cases, a well drafted and properly served 93A letter will result in the insurance company asking to negotiate or mediate prior to even responding, so that they will not be subject to failing to make an unfair offer.

In a Suffolk County Superior Court case, which we tried to completion, the Court held that the defendant did violate Chapter 93A and that we were entitled to triple damages. To avoid appeal, the defendant paid the triple damages and attorney fees.