Attorney represents client in a divorce case and then after a period of time (more than three years) represents client in a life insurance matter.  In Verkowitz v Ursprung ;2012 NY Slip Op 30284(U);
February 2, 2012; Sup Ct, Nassau County; Docket Number: 665/11; Judge: Anthony L. Parga we see the back and forth between an attorney’s suit for fees and the client’s legal malpractice case.  Three cases are started, and at the end of the decision, only one remains, with serious questions over whether there was a retainer agreement, whether there were objections to the billing, and whether the attorney had been hired to do the appeal, or agreed to do it pro-bono.

Here, there are many allegations of wrongdoing.  There is the allegation of failing to disclose the existence of malpractice, failing to advise client of her legal position in the insurance matter, failing to advise the client of how to settle the case, improperly billing the client in order to increase the legal fees, failing to distinguish between the rights and obligations of the client as either a trustee or a beneficiary of a life insurance policy, and failing to advise of a conflict of interest. 

Each suffers, determined the court, from a logical or stated connection with a specific outcome, or in other words, the "but for" portion of the case.  "An attorney’s failure to disclose a conflict of interest and advise her clients to consult with an independent attorney as a result of a purported conflict of interest does not by itself state a legal malpractice cause of action."

At the end of this case, most of the brush cut back, two of three cases dismissed, summary judgment denied, and all are warned of sanctions.