As further proof of the wide-ranging nature of legal malpractice litigation, we see in D’Elia v. D’Amico & Associates  , 2010 NY Slip Op 30545, Supreme Court, Nassau County, J. McCarty a plaintiff who has claims against the target attorneys for estate matters for two relatives as well as in the purchase of a house.

One important aspect of legal malpractice is the relatively high incidence of pro-se representation.  This case is chock full of missed deadlines, failures to obtain adjournments, etc.  The bottom line here is the statue of limitations.  Unclear from the decision is how the three year legal malpractice statute applies to work completed within that time frame, but what is absolutely clear is the effect of a disorganized approach to litigation leads to dismissal.  We see:  "To the extent that plaintiff failed to offer any opposition to any of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, this Court cannot be said to have overlooked or misapprehended the matters of fact or law prof erred by plaintiff, as there were none, and plaintiff may not include such matters of fact now, having failed to offer them in opposition to defendants’ prior motions."

"With regard to the issue of reasonable justification, plaintiff alleges that she failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss because she needed additional time to prepare her opposition to such motions, and she misunderstood this Court’s procedure for the granting of adjournments on motions."