be that other attorneys would have advised the Lenders not to extend funds to Mr. Lee. That alternative does not constitute the required specification of causal negligence. The third-party complaint does not allege that Attorney Knoblock failed to investigate, failed to take standard precautions, or failed to appreciate available information signaling misrepresentation. It simply suggests that Attorney Knoblock’s performance must have been negligent because he did not uncover the misrepresentations. Thus, the claim rests solely on the result of Attorney Knoblock’s performance. It remains conclusoiy and speculative. For these reasons, no allegations explain that the Lenders’ losses more likely than not resulted from the fault of Attorney Knoblock. Contrast Frullo, 61 Mass.App.Ct. at 817 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion These reasons warrant the
recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor holding that a client is vicariously liable for an attorneys allegedly intentional tortious conduct if the attorney acted as the clients agent holding that attorney breached duty to client by ignoring clients instruction to conduct particular discovery