Plaintiff attorney was retained by defendant Chemipal Company, and [unsuccessfully ?] tried a case for them.  Fredericks sued Chemipal Company, who then brought in appellate attorney Nathan Dershowitz. Result?  Lawyer loses, Chemipal Company wins, third-party legal malpractice case against Dershowitz  dismissed.   Fredericks v. Chemipal Ltd., 06 Civ. 966
Decided: July 6, 2007 District Judge Gerard E. Lynch U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

This three-party litigation began when plaintiff trial attorney Barry I. Fredericks ("Fredericks") sued for non-payment of what he claimed was a contingent fee owed to him by his former client, defendant Chemipal, Ltd. ("Chemipal"). Chemipal, in turn, impled its appellate attorney, Nathan Z. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), and his firm, Dershowitz, Eiger, & Adelson, P.C. ("DEA"), charging them with malpractice and breach of contract. In an Opinion and Order dated May 3, 2007, the Court granted Chemipal’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the ambiguous fee agreement was to be construed in favor of the client. This rendered the third-party action moot.

Fredericks now moves for reconsideration of the May 3 Opinion and Order, and for leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for quantum meruit recovery for services allegedly performed after the period covered by the fee agreement. The motions will be denied. "
"