The decision is somewhat short on details, but points to the most unique part of legal malpractice litigation.  When lawyers are sued for their professional acts, plaintiff must prove that "but for" the attorney’s acts there would have been a better or more favorable outcome.  In Millennium Import, LLC v Reed Smith LLP ;2010 NY Slip Op 07800 ;Decided on November 4, 2010 ;Appellate Division, First Department  we see defendant’s attempt to get the case dismissed on the basis of a perceived shortcoming which would insulate the attorneys.
 

Defendants would argue that the giving or lack of giving of a certain notice in the underlying action deprived their client of the ability to fix problems for plaintiff, or was the cause of the bad outcome.  Hence, because plaintiffs gave or failed to give notice, they cannot blame the attorneys.  The Court, without a lot of discussion determined that the notice or lack of notice did not necessarily establish that the attorneys could not have fixed the situation.