General denials by a legal malpractice plaintiff are insufficient to warrant denial of the defendants’ detailed and well-supported motion for summary judgment.

In their second motion for summary judgment and on appeal, the defendants successfully asserted that they explained the ramifications of a stock restriction or advised against the settlement proposals because the value of the plaintiffs’ stock would be diminished, which was supported by statements under oath and documentary evidence. Even though the plaintiffs were unable to recall the specifics of several lengthy discussions with the defendants concerning the prior settlement terms and their ramifications, the plaintiffs were adamant that they were never told about the risks inherent in the stock restrictions and either never saw various documents or were not given sufficient time to meaningfully consider any documents they may have seen. In affirming the second motion judge’s granting of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Appellate Court pointed to the fact that, in April 2005, both plaintiffs told the General Equity judge, under oath, that they understood the terms, had no questions, and intended to be bound by the settlement. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ unsupported assertions would not defeat a meritorious motion for summary judgment.

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015