Way back when, there were different statute of limitation in legal malpractice cases which sounded in either tort [3 years] or contract [6 years].  The Court of Appeals approved, and it was the law of the land.  As is its power, the legislature then passed CPLR 214(6) which created a single 3 year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions, whether sounding in tort or contract. 

With enterprising attorneys, and strange damage situations, this was not the end of the question.  Can there be a cause of action for breach of contract between a client and an attorney?  The short answer is yes.  As an example, were the attorney to contract to write an appeal, and no appeal was written, that would be a breach of contract.  Damages would be limited to traditional contract damages:  payments made but not earned, and perhaps the additional cost of cover [paying someone else a higher fee to do the work.]

Here, in Lambroza v. Tworney, Latham, Shea, Kelly, Dubin & Quartararo, 2009 NY Slip Op 32333(U) we see a slightly different fact pattern.  Plaintiff alleges that he hired defendant attorney to provide legal services in the purchase of real property in the Hamptons.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant was to compare the survey of the Property and the existing deed and look for differences. 

Some 6 years later differences arise, an encroachment existed, and plaintiff had to drop his sale price by $ 50,000 to cover the problem.  Is the attorney liable for breach of contract, since the statute of limitations for legal malpractice has long passed?

The answer in this case is no, as Justice Solomon was unpersuaded that this was really a contract action and not a traditional legal malpractice case. She determined that comparison of a deed to the survey is within the normal realm of legal services and was not the basis of a real contract.  Accordingly, case dismissed on statute of limitations.