In Moores v. Greenberg (1st Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1105, Moores was injured in Maine while working as a longshoreman and received compensation benefits under the Longshore Act from his employer's carrier, LMIC. Moores, through counsel (Greenberg), then brought a third party liability action against the ship-owners in federal district court. (Id. at pp. 1106, 1113.) After losing the third party action, Moores sued Greenberg for legal malpractice, on the ground that Greenberg failed to relay to Moores the ship-owners' $ 90,000 settlement offer which Moores would have accepted had he been informed of it. (Id. at pp. 1106-1107, 1109.) It was conceded that a $ 43,000 compensation lien in favor of LMIC would have attached to a recovery by Moores in his third party action against the ship-owners had he prevailed. (Id. at pp. 1109, 1113.) Following a jury trial, Moores was awarded $ 12,000 and both parties appealed. (Id. at p. 1107.) As relevant here, Moores' appeal challenged the trial court's jury instruction that any damages awarded should be reduced by the face amount of the compensation lien. (Moores, supra, 834 F.2d at p. 1113.) In particular, Moores asserted that the instruction resulted in a double reduction in his recovery, because the carrier would be entitled to a lien on the proceeds of the malpractice action. (Ibid.) The federal Court of Appeals rejected Moores underlying premise that the carrier could lien the proceeds of the malpractice action. The court held, "The physical injury stemming from the shipboard accident is separate and distinct from the legal injury worked by the lawyer's misfeasance. LMIC's right of reimbursement extends to the damages recoverable in consequence of the former-and no further. The purpose of the lien law-to prevent duplicative recovery for the same injuries and damages-would not be furthered by stretching it to envelop the malpractice award. The damages granted to plaintiff in this case are free and clear of the reach of the statutory lien." (Id. at pp. 1113-1114.)