Depending on how a legal-malpractice lawsuit is won, practitioners say, it is possible to restore a law firm’s good name.

Goulston & Storrs fought back late last month against accusations that the Boston firm and three of its partners had committed malpractice for allegedly mishandling the sale of a former client’s business.

Plaintiff Luciano Manganella accused his attorneys, Matthew E. Epstein, Daniel R. Avery and Alan W. Rottenberg, of failing to disclose conflicts of interest and not acting in his best interests.

A lawsuit in front of Suffolk Superior Court Judge Christine M. Roach sought millions of dollars from the 160-attorney firm. But after chewing on the case for just a few hours, the jury found in favor of Goulston on all but one relatively minor count concerning attorneys’ fees.

In the aftermath of the two-week trial, which was broadcast on Courtroom View Network, the question buzzing around law-firm water coolers is what impact a defense verdict has on reestablishing a law firm’s reputation.

Debra A. Squires-Lee of Sherin & Lodgen says the answer hinges, in part, on how the ultimate issues are posed to the jury.

In a malpractice victory she and Robert J. Muldoon Jr. recently obtained for Seyfarth Shaw, the first question the jury had to decide was whether the firm had done anything wrong.

The jury answered in the negative, which made issues of causation and damages moot. It also allowed the firm to walk out of court with its head held high, she says.

“If it’s a conflict case like the one [before Roach], then typically the question for the jury is: ‘Was there a breach of a fiduciary duty?’” she says. “So a ‘no’ on that is going to be a complete vindication because it means they’ve looked at everything and delivered an answer in your favor.”

But Squires-Lee says legal-malpractice cases present challenges different from most other negligence claims. Convincing the public that a law firm did nothing wrong can be an uphill battle.

“In some industries, like medical device and pharmaceuticals, litigation is the cost of doing business and getting sued is expected and understood,” she says. “But for law firms, it’s a very personal, hurtful allegation and it does damage your reputation to be in the news [for] having been sued by a client.”

Notwithstanding the sting that comes from a malpractice complaint, Richard L. Levine of Nelson, Kinder & Mosseau says Goulston should rest assured that the legal community is well aware of the verdict and likely to view the firm the same as always.

“This is ironic, but lawyers understand that, as the world becomes litigious in part because of lawyers, being sued becomes more of an occupational hazard than it ever was before,” he says. “In my experience, when a firm with a good reputation like Goulston & Storrs gets sued, people’s reaction is not to assume the firm did something wrong.”

Goulston spokeswoman Diana C. Pisciotta says the firm stands by the work it performed for Manganella. She adds that G&S, which was represented at trial by Bingham McCutchen, is always willing to work with clients on fee disputes.

Unfortunately, she says, the plaintiff chose to go a different route.

Manganella’s Boston attorneys, Daniel E. Rosenfeld and Brooks A. Ames of DLA Piper did not return calls for comment.