In Yakubov v Borukhov we see a common fact pattern.  It consists of an early event followed by litigation, bad outcome, and a look back, in legal malpractice, at the original attorney from years before.

Here the sequence is:  Real estate contract which was to allow plaintiff to subdivide property.  Seller balks, and Plaintiff-buyer litigates, eventually winning what turns out to be a damaged property.  Presumably, no subdivision is permitted.  Client, now years later, looks back at contract attorney seeking legal malpractice damages, some 5 years later.  How does this come out?

Attorney wins dismissal.  Plaintiff offers the following arguments:  I thought he was still my attorney.  This is patently insufficient, and the court so finds, in rather summary fashion.  Well then, says plaintiff, how about continuous representation ?  That’s no good either, says the Court.  There is no indication, either in affidavit form or in evidence that there was a continuing, ongoing relationship.

Case dismissed.