The law of legal malpractice is different; it is ubiquitous.  We see this theme again and again in the published cases.  In products liability law, privity was jettisoned years ago.  It remains in legal malpractice law.  In In re: HIRSCH ELECTRIC CO., INC., Debtor. ALLAN B. MENDELSOHN, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of HIRSCH ELECTRIC CO., INC., Plaintiff, M. CARL LEVINE, MORGULAS & FOREMAN, P.C., JERROLD L. MORGULAS and McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, Defendants.; Case No. 894-81580-reg, Chapter 7, Case No. 809-8452-reg;UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4040;
October 20, 2011 we see the effect:

"In the underlying action, the Debtor (subcontractor) sued Morse (general contractor) and LIJ (owner), for contract damages. All agree that the claims against Morse were worthless because Morse has ceased operations and any judgment would be uncollectible by the Debtor. The Plaintiff argues, however, that the Debtor’s claims against LIJ were valid and valuable. The Defendants argue that the Debtor had no viable cause of action against LIJ because there was no actionable legal relationship between the Debtor and LIJ, i.e., no privity. The Plaintiff argues that the claims against LIJ were valid, but for the Defendants’ malpractice, because Morse (with whom the Debtor clearly had a contractual relationship) was an agent of LIJ with the ability to create [*4] liability for LIJ under the subcontract. Thus, the theory is that the Debtor had valid claims against LIJ as the principal for whom the agent, Morse, was acting.

For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that there was no general agency relationship between Morse and LIJ, and as such no privity between the Debtor and LIJ which would have permitted a direct claim by the Debtor against LIJ. The Plaintiff has conceded that a finding by the Court that no agency relationship exists would defeat the legal malpractice claims in this case. Therefore, summary judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendants."

"In order to establish a claim for legal malpractice, the Plaintiff must prove "that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community . . . . In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred actual damages as a direct result of the attorney’s actions or inaction, and that but for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have sustained any damages . . . ." Cannistra v O’Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson & Collins, 728 N.Y.S.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) (citations omitted)."

"The Plaintiff urges this Court to find that where there is a principal/agent relationship between a project owner and a general contractor, privity exists between the subcontractor and the owner despite the absence of any direct contact between those parties. This theory derives from the general rule under New York law, that "an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable to third parties for any sums owed by the principal." Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. George A. Fuller Co., et al., 563 F.Supp. 298, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (finding agency existed between general contractor and owner and dismissing subcontractor claims against general contractor). This means that a general contractor is not liable to a subcontractor for contract damages where it is proven that the general contractor was acting as the agent of the owner. Id. The logical extension of this rule, relevant in the context of the instant matter, is that in situations where a general contractor is found to be the agent for the owner, a subcontractor’s contract claim is properly brought against the [*14] owner even if no direct contractual relationship exists between the subcontractor and the owner. Cf. Superb Gen. Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 893 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) (dismissing direct subcontractor claim against project owner where construction manager was not an agent or representative of the owner)."
 

"For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Judgment will issue in favor of the Defendants."