Pari Delicto or unclean hands is a principal that the courts should not decide between wrongdoers.  When may the court use this principal to wipe the board clean and allow no-one to bring a legal malpractice or a judiciary law 487 claim?

In Savitt v Greenberg Traurig, LLP  2015 NY Slip Op 02003  Decided on March 12, 2015  Appellate Division, First Department  we see Supreme Court dismissing the claims, and the Appellate Division reversing.  For the AD, there was not enough wrongdoing.

“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the Judiciary Law § 487 claims against defendant law firm and the individual attorney defendants, and the derivative claims against defendants Janis Savitt (Janis) and Designs by Janis Savitt, Inc. (Designs), unanimously modified, on the law, the motion to dismiss the derivative claims denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.”

“The motion court erred, however, in dismissing the derivative claims asserted by plaintiff Michelle Savitt on behalf of M+J Savitt, Inc. (M+J), against Janis and Designs on the basis of unclean hands (see Ross v Moyer, 286 AD2d 610, 611 [1st Dept 2001]). Michelle and Janis allege corporate misdeeds against each other. However, there are issues of fact as to whether Michelle committed misconduct and, if so, whether Janis’s misconduct far exceeded that of [*2]Michelle. There are also questions of fact as to whether Janis was aware of and consented to Michelle’s conduct (Dillon v Dean, 158 AD2d 579, 580 [2d Dept 1990]; Stahl v Chemical Bank, 237 AD2d 231, 232 [1st Dept 1997]).”