This legal malpractice traces its birth to a 2000 tolling agreement between a long lost law firm, Tenzer Greenblatt and Kramer Levin, which took place in Delaware.  In 1996 investors started what would be a bankruptcy bound law suit over an investment firm. The case is Blank Rome, LLP v Parrish ; 2011 NY Slip Op 30712(U); March 24, 2011; Sup Ct, NY County; Docket Number: 601809/05;Judge: Jeffrey K. Oing

Of relevance to the legal malpractice case was a tolling agreement reached in 2000 which held that any claims that were already too late as of that date would not be tolled, but any new claims after that date would be tolled for at least 120 days.

Of course, in 2002 a case was started against Kramer Levin with Parish using BR., which was dismissed in Supreme Court, New York County.  That dismissal was appealed, and the AD affirmed.  Tenzer Greenblatt’s successor, Blank Rome then sued for its legal fees.  The counterclaim against Blank Rome alleges that BR allowed the statute of limitations to expire on claims against KL.

Again a motion to dismiss was successful, but this time the AD reversed,  Now in a third party action agasint other attorneys we see the following:

"the principle is well settled that a law firm sued for malpractice may bring a third-party complaint
seeking indemnification or contribution from a subsequently or  concurrently retained law firm whose negligence has contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff’s damages (Soussis v. Lazer, Apthaker, Rosella & Yedid PC, 66 AD3d 993 (2d Dept, 2009); Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP v. Bond Street Associates, Ltd.  266 AD2d 125 (1st Dept, 1991)."