A very familiar situation in legal malpractice is where one member of an LLC sues the law firm over its representation of the LLC to the member’s detriment. Often the law firm has been hired solely by the LLC and the member believes that the law firm is protecting the member’s interests. Zabit v Brandometry, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 31752(U)
April 16, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656563/2021 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva is such a case.
In this motion {seq. no. 001), defendant BACON LAW GROUP {law firm) and its principal defendant THOMAS C. BACON {attorney) move to dismiss the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction {see CPLR § 3211 [a] [8]). In the alternative, law firm and attorney move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action {see CPLR § 3211 [a] [7] ) .
Plaintiffs WILLIAM ZABIT and BRANDTRANSACT WORLDWIDE INC. oppose this application in its entirety, arguing that the Court has jurisdiction over law firm and attorney, pursuant to New York State’s long-arm statute {see CPLR § 302 [a] [1]) and that
they have sufficiently pled their causes of action against these defendants.”
“In the case at bar, plaintiffs have established all the above criteria as against defendants BACON LAW GROUP (law firm) and THOMAS C. BACON (attorney), law firm’s principal. It is undisputed that law firm and attorney functioned as retained counsel for defendant BRANDTRANSACT INVESTMENTS, LLC (BTI), which defendant LARRY A. MEDIN (Medin), and plaintiff WILLIAM ZABIT (Zabit) established and owned together; BTI has offices in New York, NY, and both Medin and Zabit work and reside here.
As counsel to BTI, law firm and attorney actively participated, from California, in phone calls with BTI, and with Medin and Zabit, while these clients were in this state. In
their capacity as counsel, defendants provided, among other things, their advice and input on negotiations involving the restructuring of BTI and Medin’s and Zabit’s ownership shares in BTI.”
“In this action, as undisputed at oral argument, the causes of action plaintiffs assert against law firm and attorney are as follows: (1) fraud, (2) aiding and abetting fraud, (3)
fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (6) tortious interference with contract (7) civil conspiracy, and (8) legal malpractice.”
“In support of this fraud claim against BTI, plaintiffs assert that counsel knew Medin’s statement(s) to law firm and attorney were false and/or that law firm and attorney knew that Medin was providing false information, if any, to Zabit and engaging in a scheme to take BTI, among other things, from Zabit. However, there are no alleged facts to support this conclusory narrative. For example, plaintiffs’ allegations do not include direct communication of admitted falsity or documentary contradictions made to counsel, disproving anything Medin may have relayed to law firm or attorney or admissions and/or any specific circumstances showing counsel participated
in the crafting or perpetuating of a knowingly false narrative.
To the extent that plaintiffs appear to rely on the law firm and attorney’s representation of BTI and their drafting of such legal documents to set forth a cause of fraud, these
facts alone do not permit an inference of misconduct. Indeed, to find otherwise would improperly conflate legal representation with participation in wrongdoing and expose virtually allcounsel to liability based solely on their role as advocates.”
(to be continued)