We’ve often noted that stating the mistake made by an attorney is not the difficult part of legal malpractice analysis.  Judges, lay persons and attorneys all readily point to this mistake or that mistake. Stating a departure from good and accepted practice is the easy part of the triumvirate.  What is way more difficult is analysis of the "but for" and the "damage" aspects of a case.  Here, in Meimeteas v Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP ;2012 NY Slip Op 30134(U) ;January 12, 2012
Supreme Court, New York County; Docket Number: 100857/11 ;Judge: Eileen A. Rakower we see that plaintiff fails to convince the judge that there is merit to the underlying claim, regardless of mistakes his attorney may have made.

"According to the complaint, plaintiff was employed as Vice President in the Global Commercial Real Estate Group at Lehman Brothers (“Lehman”) from September 1997 until November 2004, when he was “abruptly terminated” from his position. Plaintiff alleges that he was fired for
voicing his objections to engaging in “certain illegal and or unethical business practices”in which his Lehman colleagues participated. Plaintiff claims that he was told that if he “went quietly” he would be paid his full bonus for 2004, in the amount of $290,000. Plaintiff did not receive his bonus.

Thereafter, plaintiff engaged defendant Carter Legyard & Milburn LLP (“CLM”). Defendant Janet Lockhart handled plaintiffs case for the firm. Plaintiff claims that Lockhart assured him that “a quick and favorable settlement” could be had, and, if not, she would file either an arbitration proceeding pursuant to plaintiffs “Series 7 License,” a lawsuit for wrongful termination, or seek redress for plaintiff as a “whistle blower.”

In early 2006, Lockhart advised plaintiff to appear for a deposition in an unrelated case involving Lehman and one of its clients, Laureate, and to sign a “stand still” agreement until August 2006. Lockhart apparently told plaintiff that if he cooperated, it would result in a quicker and more favorable settlement of plaintiffs claims. Lehman agreed to pay for CLM’s preparation and  representation of plaintiff at the deposition, Plaintiff stopped receiving bills from CLM entirely.
Plaintiff signed the stand still agreement and appeared for the deposition in April 2006, but CLM did not appear on his behalf. Plaintiff, later in his complaint, alludes to other representation at the deposition. Thereafter, plaintiff made efforts to get a firm response on the status of his case and settlement, but repeated calls by plaintiff and his wife were not returned. Eventually, Lockhart and other CLM partners advised plaintiff that they had nothing to report, because nothing could be done while the unrelated lawsuit involving Lehman remained unresolved. In April 2007, Lockhart encouraged plaintiff to extend the stand still agreement, which plaintiff refused to do. However, CLM and Lehman allegedly extended the agreement without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.
CLM took no action against Lehman, and in 2008, plaintiff learned from Lehman’s counsel that Lehman. had settled the unrelated matter in the fall of 2007. In March 2008, plaintiff started calling Lockhart with increasing frequency because he was becoming concerned about the financial condition of Lehman, but his calls were not returned. Plaintiff alleges that CLM still took no action in furtherance of his claims, but Lockhart assured him that “Lehman was not in serious
danger of bankruptcy or sale.”
 

In September 2008, Lehman filed for bankruptcy, and plaintiff called Lockhart that day to seek legal guidance as to how his interests could be protected. Lockhart  advised plaintiff that, despite the bankruptcy, the claims could still be advanced because they were evidenced by the stand still agreements and the ongoing discussions with Lehman since 2004. Plaintiff heard nothing else from CLM or Lockhart, and ultimately filed a proof of claim online without assistance from CLM
on the last date that he was permitted to do so.

The complaint, in a veiled attempt to show that defendants’ negligent representation was the proximate cause of his losses, suggests plaintiff possessed proof of unethical practices, and suggests he was wrongfully terminated by Lehman. Proof of unethical practices is vaguely referred to in his allegations that he testified truthfully at a deposition regarding these practices and disclosed them. Nevertheless, the precise information plaintiff possessed for purposes of his whistle blower claim is never delineated. (compare with; Hayes v. Bello, 23 Misc.3d 534[Sup. Crt.
Richmond Cnty. 20091, where the court found that plaintiff satisfied the causation element by alleging “sufficient detailed facts regarding the circumstances and activities surrounding her termination,” including the specific alleged illegal activity, whom she reported the illegal activity to, and that such report resulted in her retaliatory termination.)
Further, the employment relationship between plaintiff and Lehman is never explained. For example, whether such relationship was subject to any written agreement. Indeed, plaintiff mentions Lehman practices when revealing that his bonus was not payable once he had left employment, but does not reveal whether his  employment and compensation was subject to an employee handbook or other agreement. He simply denies the documented reason for his termination, which was stated to be non productive "