Client is a sophisticated real estate investor, and has hired attorney to do two deals already.  Both went smoothly.  Third time, client expects to lend $ 500,000 to a real estate development, and finds himself not only out the $ 500,000 but owing $ 650,000 to another lender. 

Defendant attorney says, look at the documents.  Sophisticated client investor knew exactly what he was doing.  There is no legal malpractice.  Who is right?  We see the following in Marom v Anselmo ;2011 NY Slip Op 30756(U); March 31, 2011; Supreme Court, Richmond County
Docket Number: 101440/09; Judge: Joseph J. Maltese

"Defendant correctly notes that a party who signs a document without reading it is generally bounds by its terms notwithstanding any avowed lack of knowledge of its contents (see Matter of ugustine v. BankUnited, FSB, 75 AD3d 596, 597; Martino v. Kaschak, 308 AD2d 698). Dfendant is further correct in noting that (1) the terms of these documents are clear; (2) a quick rading thereof would have apprised plaintiff that he had not been granted a first mortgage on the sbject property; (3) plaintiff was no novice to real estate investing; (4) there has been no claim that plaintiff was suffering from any disability at the time of execution or was prevented from reading the documents, and (5) plaintiff does not claim that he was forced or coerced into signing the documents, or was subjected to either fraud or misrepresentation (see Matter of Augustine v.BankUnited, FSB, 75 AD3d at 597; Pistilli v. Gandin, 10 AD3d 353, 354; Pimpinello v. Swift & Co., 253 NY 159, 162-163). However, plaintiff at bar has not challenged the binding nature of the documents which he signed or tried to avoid the terms of his agreements with the Zeers. Under similar circumstances, the Court of Appeals has held that “the binding nature of [the] agreement[s] between plaintiff and a third party is not a complete defense to the professional malpractice of [a lawyer or] law firm that [is alleged to have secured] an agreement [which operated to its client’s detriment]” (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v. Brown Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 304-305)
The culpable conduct of the plaintiff-client in a legal malpractice action may, nevertheless, be pleaded as a mitigating factor by way of an affirmative defense (see Cicorelli v Capobianco, 90 AD2d 524, affd 59 NY2d 626)."