Suffolk Court Dismisses Parts of Malpractice Lawsuit
A judge narrowed claims against law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder in a recent ruling.
Updated on Oct. 29, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should courts strictly enforce statute of limitations deadlines for legal malpractice claims?
In September 2026, a Suffolk Superior Court judge dismissed four counts of an eight-count legal malpractice complaint against Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP. The court also cleared three specific attorneys of all claims following a review of the litigation.
Why it matters
The ruling limits the scope of the case by enforcing a three-year statute of limitations on claims and rejecting the plaintiffs' use of the continuing representation doctrine. The court found no evidence of an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the plaintiffs concerning the Bertolino Litigation.
The initial complaint, filed on October 31, 2025, contained 285 paragraphs and eight distinct legal claims. The court excluded all claims arising before October 31, 2022, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The players
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP
This is a full-service law firm with offices throughout the Northeast that provides legal counsel in a variety of practice areas.
Todd Gleason
He is an attorney who was named in the malpractice complaint but subsequently dismissed from the action.
James Tuxbury
He is an attorney who was named in the malpractice complaint but subsequently dismissed from the action.
Christopher Carter
He is an attorney who was named in the malpractice complaint but subsequently dismissed from the action.
The details
The judge applied standard motion to dismiss criteria, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the statute of limitations. Attorneys Todd Gleason, James Tuxbury, and Christopher Carter were dismissed from the case entirely.
Timeline
October 31, 2022: The cutoff date for the statute of limitations on alleged conduct.
October 31, 2025: The date the initial complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.
September 2026: The Suffolk Superior Court issued the ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Political Context
The court's rejection of the continuing representation doctrine mirrors judicial scrutiny applied in other professional malpractice suits. This decision marks a firm boundary on how courts apply the statute of limitations to ongoing professional relationships.
This ruling clarifies the timeframe within which legal malpractice claims must be brought to court in Massachusetts. Residents and businesses should note that claims originating more than three years prior to filing are unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss.
The takeaway
This case emphasizes the importance of filing legal claims promptly before statutory deadlines expire. Plaintiffs should ensure they can establish a clear attorney-client relationship for every specific matter cited in a complaint.
Further reading
For more information on legal proceedings, visit the Law section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should courts strictly enforce statute of limitations deadlines for legal malpractice claims?
