Plaintiff owes three banks, and one of them is really trying to recover its money.    Plaintiff recently transferred his home ownership to his wife.  Plaintiff goes to an attorney to discuss how to shield an upcoming inheritance from his father.  The attorney is willing to take two of the three cases, but not the third, because it represents the bank which is really trying to recover its money.  Plaintiff discloses all his financials to the attorney.

When another attorney is able to settle the bank debt for 35%, all seems good.  Then the bank calls and says, "no deal,"  It seems that they know about the house and the inheritance.  How?

 In  Rubinstein v Kriss & Feurstein  2013 NY Slip Op 31575(U)  July 12, 2013  Sup Ct, NY County
Docket Number: 653136/12  Judge: Saliann Scarpulla we see plaintiff lose the case. 

"1. Negligence
In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges negligence based on Defendants’ violation of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. I grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim. A private cause of action cannot be based on a violation of the professional rules of conduct. Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Balian, 172 A.D.2d 254, 254 (1 st Dep’t 1991). 

2. Legal Malpractice
To prevail in a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action "but for" the attorney’s negligence. Aquino v. Kuczinski, Vila & Assoc., P.c., 39 A.D.3d 216,218 (lst Dep’t 2007).
Here, I grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim. Based on the documentary evidence and affidavits submitted, Defendants demonstrated that Plaintiff does not have a cause of action for legal malpractice because Defendants did not reveal any confidential information about Plaintiff to Valley National Bank. Defendants submitted an affidavit from Valley National Bank’s vice president David Jacques, in which Jacques states that the bank’s knowledge of Plaintiffs financial situation came from search of public records, conversations with former employees, or information provided Plaintiff himself. Defendants also demonstrated that the information about Plaintiffs house and the inheritance from his father was available in public records prior to the initial client meeting between Plaintiff and Defendants on April 23, 2010.
Plaintiff claims that issues of fact exist as to whether Skurman learned the information about his financial situation from Defendants. However, Plaintiff fails to raise a material issue of fact. Although Schoenwald stated in his affidavit that Valley National Bank’s lawyer Paul Skurman informed him over the phone that "he had heard that Mr. Rubinstein [Plaintiff] had transferred his house into his wife’s name and was expecting an inheritance from his fathers estate" – this statement does not in any way establish that Skurman learned this information from Defendants. Plaintiffs allegation  that Defendants revealed confidential information to Valley National Bank is vague and conclusory, and therefore his legal malpractice claim must be dismissed. Lester v. Braue, 25 A.D.3d 769, 769 (Ist Dep’t 2006).

For the above reasons, I grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action for legal malpractice.
 

3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
An "attorney stands in a fiduciary relationship to the client which relationship is imbued with ultimate trust and confidence that imposes a set of special and unique duties, such as maintaining confidentiality." Beltrone v. Gen. Schuyler & Co., 252 A.D.2d 640, 641 (3d Dep’t 1998); Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 A.D.3d 1,9 (Ist Dep’t 2008).
Here, I grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary claim because it is duplicative of the legal malpractice claim. Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by revealing confidential information and he seeks economic damages resulting from the breach. This is a duplicative claim that must be dismissed because it is based on the same allegations as the legal malpractice claim and seeks identical relief. Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 290 A.D.2d 399, 400 (Ist Dep’t 2002)."