§ 10 addresses remedies at law beyond those available under § 9, it focuses on remedies at law between the parties (in this case, between the creditor and the executor). Garthwait’s general claim that potential malpractice suits against Mullins’ attorneys constitutes adequate remedies at law is not sufficient. The very nature of relief afforded by § 10 contemplates the existence of potential malpractice suits against the plaintiffs attorney. If I accept the defendant’s position, then every creditor who hired a lawyer, but failed to timely prosecute his claim under § 9, would arguably have an adequate remedy at law in the form of a malpractice suit. If that were the ease, relief under § 10 would be largely foreclosed. See, Hastoupis v. Gargas, supra, 9 Mass.App.Ct. at 32, 398 N.E.2d 745 (<HOLDING>); Downey, supra, 312 Mass. at 408, 45 N.E.2d
holding that creditor who did not seek authorization from bankruptcy court could nevertheless assert claim under  549 in chapter 11 case because appropriate circumstances were shown  ie there was no trustee to file the claim the debtor had no reason to file a claim and the successful avoidance of the transfer would have increased the debtors liability holding that property owner was not entitled to relief under cafra because he received notice and failed to properly file a claim holding that plaintiff who consulted an experienced attorney who failed to timely file the claim was nevertheless entitled to relief under  10 holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983