"Medicine is an art and not a science" is a phrase heard at every medical malpractice case, often in summation.  This is a folksy restatement of the judgment principal.  In law it’s slightly different.  An attorney may not be held responsible in legal malpractice for a choice of reasonable strategy, even when its a loser. 

in Rodriguez v Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. ; 2011 NY Slip Op 01346 ; Decided on February 22, 2011 ; Appellate Division, First Department we see one application of the rule.  Here it was a choice of what evidence to place before the arbitrator in a Motor Vehicle arbitration.
 

"Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the associate who represented plaintiffs in the underlying arbitration was pursuing a reasonable strategy in not submitting repair bills and photographs that depicted damage consistent with the uninsured driver’s testimony (see Noone v Stieglitz, 59 AD3d 505 [2009]; Iocovello v Weingrad & Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208 [2004]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s argument that the damage depicted in the photographs would [*2]have led the arbitrator to conclude that the uninsured driver was speeding, is insufficient speculation (see Alter & Alter v Cannella, 284 AD2d 138, 139 [2001]; John P. Tilden, Ltd. v Profeta & Eisenstein, 236 AD2d 292 [1997]). "