In this Lexology report, the lawfirm Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP argues that a fall decision of the Court of Appeals re-affirms the principal that a legal malpractice claim might proceed even in fhe fact of documents signed by plaintniff or its predecessor.  The facts of Bishop v. Maurer  2007 NY Slip Op 6743; 9 N.Y.3d 910; 875 N.E.2d 883; 844 N.Y.S.2d 165; 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 2666

"involved the plaintiffs’ contention that the attorneys who prepared estate planning documents for plaintiffs’ decedent were negligent in drafting. The defendant law firm argued that the claim should be precluded based on the doctrine that parties should be bound by the documents which they (or, here, their decedent) executed. The Court held that the documents did not necessarily preclude a legal malpractice claim, since a client might be able to establish that his or her attorney negligently furnished an incorrect explanation of the contents of the document. "

The Decision in the Court of Appeals: "The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with [**911] costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. It is true that plaintiffs here, [*2] as is normally the case, are bound by the estate planning documents decedent signed. Nevertheless, the conclusiveness of the underlying agreement does not absolutely preclude an action for professional malpractice against an attorney for negligently giving to a client an incorrect explanation of the contents of a legal document (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 305, 751 NE2d 936, 727 NYS2d 688 [2001]). Here, however, plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given. "