. Defendants sometimes say that a legal malpractice case is a grudge match, or a lawsuit based solely upon pique.  Sometimes it is true, and the legal malpractice law suit serves as the last act of a badly ended attorney-client relationship. 

Here in this case, we have a pro-se plaintiff pursuing a pro-se defendant, over a case which was lost prior to plaintiff’s retention of defendant in the underlying action.  in Kuzmin v Nevsky
2010 NY Slip Op 04959 ;Decided on June 8, 2010 ;Appellate Division, Second Department  plaintiff had already lost her employment discrimination case when she hired Nevsky.  From there, it went downhill.
 

"On May 17, 2001, the plaintiff, Tatiana Kuzmin, commenced an action against Visiting Nurse Service of New York (hereinafter VNS), Rockaway Home Attendant Services, Inc. (hereinafter Rockaway), and Oleg Beretsky, alleging sexual harassment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other causes of action. In an order dated November 13, 2002, the Supreme Court granted the motion of the defendants in that action to dismiss the complaint in that action, except for one cause of action alleging assault and battery, which was directed solely at Beretsky. Kuzmin retained the defendant, Lena Nevsky, as her attorney on January 31, 2003. Nevsky moved, on behalf of Kuzmin, inter alia, for leave to reargue Kuzmin’s opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the underlying action, and the Supreme Court denied the motion. The relationship between Kuzmin and Nevsky began to deteriorate, and Nevsky moved to withdraw as counsel in the underlying action on October 21, 2003. The Supreme Court granted Nevsky’s motion to withdraw.  On April 10, 2007, Kuzmin filed a pro se complaint against Nevsky alleging legal malpractice. Nevsky moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that Nevsky failed to attach a copy of the complaint. Nevsky then moved, inter alia, for leave to renew her prior motion to dismiss, this time attaching a copy of the complaint. In an order dated May 15, 2009, the Supreme Court granted that branch of Nevsky’s motion which was for leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted Nevsky’s motion to dismiss the complaint. [*2]

Kuzmin also moved for leave to enter a default judgment based on Nevsky’s failure to answer the complaint. In an order dated June 17, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the matter had been dismissed. Kuzmin appeals from the orders dated May 15, 2009, and June 17, 2009. We affirm. "

.