Pro-Se Plaintiff Loses Legal Malpractice Case with Not Much Explanation

Pro-se litigation in legal malpractice has a poor prognosis.  There are many idiosyncratic aspects to legal malpractice cases, and Pouncy v Solotaroff    2012 NY Slip Op 07381  Decided on November 8, 2012   Appellate Division, First Department is one example.  What is the line between reasonable and unreasonable strategic choice?
 

"The IAS court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for legal malpractice, as the complaint failed to state a claim for that cause of action. Rather, plaintiff's complaint amounts "to no more than retrospective complaints about the outcome of defendant[s'] strategic choices and tactics," with no demonstration that those choices and tactics were unreasonable (Rodriguez v Fredericks, 213 AD2d 176, 178 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 812 [1995]). In any event, plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]; Wray v Mallilo & Grossman, 54 AD3d 328, 329 [2d Dept 2008]). "