In 2008, plaintiff Joshua O’Keefe, an 8-year-old child, by and through his parents Robert and Vikki O’Keefe, brought a suit against Dr. Terence Lau, a dentist, and Dr. Laura Matsunaga, an anesthesiologist, alleging dental malpractice. The parents alleged that in December 2002, Joshua, who was then 35 months old, was being prepped for anesthesia to undergo cosmetic dental surgery to treat multiple chipped and rotten baby teeth when green mucus began to appear in the saliva suction tube, causing the doctors to abort the procedure. As a result, Joshua’s parents claimed that Lau and Matsunaga were negligent in the care of their son, causing him to sustain a hypoxic brain injury that resulted in behavioral issues. Joshua’s parents ultimately retained Scott Braybrooke from the firm of Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke LLP in the action against Lau and Matsunaga. In 2009, after filing the complaint and receiving an answer, and while Braybrooke was in the process of retaining an expert anesthesiologist for trial, counsel for Lau and Matsunaga moved for summary judgment on liability, and it was granted. The case was subsequently dismissed. Joshua O’Keefe, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Robert O’Keefe, sued Scott Braybrooke and Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke, alleging legal malpractice in regard to the defendants’ handling of the underlying lawsuit against Lau and Matsunaga. The matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial in which Joshua’s counsel had to prove the underlying dental malpractice claim in the first phase. Mr. O’Keefe claimed that his son had no behavioral issues prior to December 2002, when Joshua presented to Lau and Matsunaga. Thus, he claimed that the doctors’ negligent treatment caused a hypoxic event that resulted in his son’s behavioral issues. Mr. O’Keefe alleged that the likely cause was a shortage of air to his son’s brain and that when he went to check on his son during the procedure, the pulse oximeter, which measures oxygen saturation, read 78, while a normal reading should be 95 or above. Mr. O’Keefe further argued, as to the legal malpractice claim against the defendants, that Braybrooke should have retained an expert anesthesiologist before filing the case, and should have tried harder in his pursuit to retain one. Defense counsel argued that Lau and Matsunaga were not negligent, and that their care did not cause a hypoxic event or Joshua’s subsequent behavioral issues, which were characteristics of his autism. Counsel contended that Joshua’s parents did not accept the diagnosis of autism, despite multiple medical professionals stating that the child’s behavioral issues were related to, or consistent with, autism. Defense counsel further argued that Mr. O’Keefe did not accurately read his son’s oximeter, since a reading as low as 78 would have triggered an alarm on the machine, and that Joshua would have been in an obvious state of distress. Furthermore, counsel contended that Joshua’s oximeter was a white machine with yellow readings, while Mr. O’Keefe claimed he read a black machine with red readings. On the issue of legal malpractice, Braybrooke claimed that no expert anesthesiologist would take the underlying case since none of the experts he sought could testify as to any negligence on the part of Lau and Matsunaga. Defense counsel also argued that the conduct of Braybrooke and his firm were proper and within the legal standard of care., The trial was bifurcated, so damages were not before the court. Mr. O’Keefe claimed that his son sustain a hypoxic brain injury that resulted in behavioral issues following Joshua’s dental treatment in December 2002. Thus, he sought recovery of damages related to the retention of Braybrooke and his firm, as well as recovery of the damages that would have been received from the underlying dental malpractice case, had it gone to trial and prevailed. Defense counsel would have argued that Joshua and his parents were not entitled to any damages since there was no departure from the legal standard of care nor was there any alleged dental malpractice. In addition, counsel would have disputed the claimed by Joshua’s parents, arguing that multiple medical professionals opined that Joshua’s behavioral issues were related to autism, which his parents refused to accept.