Representation of clients may be limited or general.  An attorney-client relationship is considered to be general unless it is specifically limited by a retainer agreement.  That retainer agreement had best be very specific, and it should set the limits quite clearly.  If it does not, then the attorney can be held responsible for all acts that should have been performed, even if outside the scope of the "limited" retainer.

In Superior Tech. Solutions, Inc. v Rozenholc ;  2013 NY Slip Op 30690(U)  April 1, 2013
Sup Ct, New York County  Docket Number: 100856/12  Judge: Joan A. Madden we see one such example.  The attorney says that he was retained solely for  potential litigation with the commercial landlord.  The client then, after some representation, fails to renew the lease.  Is the attorney responsible?

"However, the issue of whether Rozenholc had a duty to renew the plaintiffs’ lease is different from whether the plaintiffs’ orally renewed their lease, and this issue was not addressed in the prior two actions. In the New York Supreme Court decision dated May 1 1,20 1 1 , the court merely determined that Lee’s alleged attempt to orally renew the lease was insufficient under the terms of the lease. The Bankruptcy Court similarly discussed the validity of Lee’s oral lease renewal. A determination of whether the lease renewal was within Rozenholc‘s duties was not made within the course of either litigation, so the doctrine of law does not apply.

Under this standard, the complaint adequately states a cause of action for legal malpractice based on allegations that Rozenholc failed to advise the plaintiffs of the date that the renewal option had to be exercised? and/or failed to exercise the renewal option on behalf of plaintiffs and that but for Rozenholc’s negligence, Superior would not have become holdover tenant, subject to an eviction proceeding and ineligible for a buyout offer, and therefore damaged.

The court also rejects Rozenholc’s argument that he is not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ damages due to successor counsel’s liability. While it has been held that predecessor counsel’s negligence may not be the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged damages when subsequent counsel had a sufficient opportunity to protect plaintiffs’ rights (E& Perks v. Lauto & Garabedian, 306 A.D.2d 261,262 (2nd Dept 2003), this rule is inapplicable here, as the right to renew the relevant lease expired on October 3 1,20 10, before the subsequent counsel was retained ."

Finally, the documentary evidence and in particular the retainer agreement does not establish that the legal malpractice action is insufficient as a matter of law. Specifically, the retainer agreement which describes Rozenholc’s services to include which includes bringing actions to protect plaintiffs’ interest in the lease and representing plaintiffs in negotiations with the landlord arguably can be interpreted to include exercising plaintiffs’ renewal option under the lease."