In Acosta v. Falick & RochmanPLATZER, FALLICK & STERNHEIM, LLP, 05 Civ. 8254 (KTD)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70878 we see a case brought pro-se and "in forma pauperis against his former lawyer, Barry M. Fallick, and his former lawyer’s firm, Rochman, Platzer, Fallick & Sternheim, LLP (collectively, "Defendants"). Acosta seeks the return of legal fees paid to Defendants plus other incidental costs arising out of Defendants’ representation of him in a criminal matter." 

There, Judge Duffy "satisfied myself of both the guilt of the defendant and that the plea was being made voluntarily by a person who knew exactly what his rights were and knew exactly what he was doing. Indeed I remember thinking about the arguments that must have been raised by defense counsel in bargaining with the government, and I still marvel at the wonderful result defense counsel obtained for his client. The government had originally charged Acosta with dealing in narcotics–a charge reduced by the bargain to use of a "communication facility" in connection with drug dealing. I knew that Acosta, as a police officer, would face a tough time in prison, but believed that he was not exempt from jail time. On January 9, 2001, I sentenced him to forty-eight months’ imprisonment, two years’ supervised release, and charged the mandatory $ 100 special assessment."

Apparently there was no diversity jurisdiction, so plaintiff " alleges violations of 41 U.S.C. § 37 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, but neither of these statutes provide a legal basis for his claims. First, 41 U.S.C. § 37 authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to distribute to certain government agencies lists of persons who have breached public contracts. See 41 U.S.C. § 37. The fee agreement in this case is not a public contract, so it is not covered under the statute. Further, the statute does not authorize a private right of action or money damages at all."
"However, Plaintiff’s complaint in this case, broadly construed, alleges only facts most closely resembling state law breach of contract and legal malpractice claims over which this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. As Defendants point out, complete diversity is lacking and Plaintiff does not claim more than $ 75,000 in damages, so 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) cannot provide a basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, as Acosta’s complaint lacks any basis in law and is consequently frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i), I must dismiss it."
 

Different result in State Court?