In Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s coverage of the matter, reporter Kris Olson sought comment from Erin who co-authored the professional malpractice volume of the Massachusetts Practice Series.
The article notes: “ Erin K. Higgins of Conn Kavanaugh in Boston, who co-authored the professional malpractice volume of the Massachusetts Practice Series, was surprised by Salinger’s ruling, given that GPS had an expert ready to testify that the standard of care required disclosure. “I would think most judges would say, in that circumstance, this needs to go to a jury,” she says.
But Higgins calls it “arguable” whether Rule 1.13 required Henderson to report up. “It’s obviously a very big decision to go outside that chain of command and go above [the CEO’s] head,” she says.
A board might expect that of “the lawyer who knows the most about what’s going on,” Higgins says. But “that wasn’t Henderson.”
Where Henderson “could have done better,” Higgins says, was in making clear that the investigation was not his responsibility — more a matter of competence, diligence or communication than of Rule 1.13.
“Silence in the face of that kind of an email is not the right strategy,” she says.
Higgins also calls GPS’s causation theory “quite speculative,” noting that a report on agents “nosing about” would have been one of perhaps “10 things on the agenda” at a board meeting and may not have triggered an immediate response, as the plaintiffs’ claims imply.”
To read the entire article, click here (subscription required): https://masslawyersweekly.com/2026/11/05/appeals-court-revives-lawyer-malpractice-soccer-suit/
Share with your network:
