Sure, there is a requirement that attorneys provide a retainer agreement or a letter setting forth the work to be performed and the costs.  However, the Appellate Division has ruled that an attorney can collect fees even in the absence of a retainer agreement in Seth Rubenstein v. Ganea.   So, what does it matter anyway?

Well, it can matter when the attorney wants to limit his exposure for not undertaking certain acts. Soubbotin v Joseph Potashnik & Assoc., PLLC
2016 NY Slip Op 02800  Decided on April 13, 2016  Appellate Division, Second Department  is an example.  Was the attorney required to engage in a hearing before the NYS Dept. of Labor?  It’s a question of fact, and one which could have been ruled out in the retainer agreement.

“The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to timely request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to review certain determinations of the New York State Department of Labor regarding overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the acts that they allegedly failed to perform were beyond the scope of the subject retainer agreement (cf. AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435;DeNatale v Santangelo, 65 AD3d 1006, 1007; Turner v Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, 61 AD3d 849, 850). Accordingly, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).”