We discussed Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP v e-Smart Tech., Inc.; 2011 NY Slip Op 30651(U);
March 18, 2011; Sup Ct, New York County; Docket Number: 113108/09; Judge: Judith J. Gische on the question of dropping a client just before a deadline. That shortcoming was held not to be legal malpractice.  What about unauthorized divulgance of privileged documents or cooperating with an opponent after the romance wears off?  Those allegations lead to a different result.

"Although Smart states that Fitz and Hinshaw breached their fiduciary duty by providing confidential and/or privileged documents to the SEC and other persons, they have not specified, even in the most general way, what kinds of documents they are referring to, with two exceptions, one being a single document attached as an exhibit to Fitz’s motion to be relieved as counsel in one of the California cases.  It is unrefuted that she attached this documents, it was obtained by defense counsel in the other California action and that, eventually, the file was sealed by the court because the document was privileged. At the pleading stage, Smart‘s facts support the claim of breach of fiduciary duty asserted as to that document. Other documents readily identified are those Fritz provided to the SEC without Smart’s consent. Though the documents were produced pursuant to a subpoena, that defense can be raised in Fritz and Hinshaw answer."