This case illustrates how difficult it may be to prosecute a Judiciary law 487 case in a legal malpractice setting.  Sara Kinberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Heidi Opinsky, Defendant-Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT , 2008 NY Slip Op 4616Decided May 22, 2008.

We have seen unsuccessful 487 cases with allegations of forged wills  which were filed with the surrogate.  Here, the court did not discuss the specific evidence before it,

"The record shows that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant committed negligent acts but for which plaintiff’s 1992 matrimonial action, which plaintiff ultimately settled in 2000 after having discharged defendant, would have ended more favorably to her (see e.g. Tanel v Kreitzer & Vogelman, 293 AD2d 420, 421 [2002]). Moreover, in two causes of action, plaintiff fails to plead any demand for compensatory damages, and her demands for punitive damages are unsupported by evidence that would warrant such relief (see Gamiel v Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C., 16 AD3d 140, 141 [2005]). Plaintiff’s cause of action alleging that defendant violated Judiciary Law § 487 is not viable, as the requisite evidence of a "chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency" is not found in the record (see Nason v Fisher, 36 AD3d 486, 487 [2007], quoting Solow Mgt. Corp. v Seltzer, 18 AD3d 399, 400 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]). [*2] "