Plaintiff law firm wants to collect $ 58,000 in fees, and Defendant Client believes that the law firm abandoned her during a divorce, took her escrow monies to pay fees, and caused her to spend $ 250,000 to get another attorney up to speed. The case has been before Justice James, in Supreme Court, New York County, then to the AD, and now back to her.  Here is her take on the matters in Bender Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP v Simon ; 2011 NY Slip Op 32923(U);November 4, 2011; Sup Ct, NY County;Docket Number: 100358/06 ;Judge: Debra A. James:  "The Law Firm commenced the instant action to recover legal fees in the amount of $58,900.36, arising from its representation of Simon during her underlying matrimonial action, entitled Simon v Simon (Sup Ct, NY County, Index No.: 303306/2001). The complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract (first), account stated (second), and quantum meruit (third). Simon interposed an Answer, asserting two counterclaims: legal malpractice (first) and the return of escrow funds alleged
to have been improperly appropriated by the Law Firm (second). The Law Firm subsequently moved to dismiss the counterclaims, and Simon cross-moved for partial summary judgment on its second counterclaim. After this court denied the parties’ respective applications in its order dated July 2, 2007 (the Prior Order), the parties appealed the Prior Order. The Appellate Division modified the Prior Order, only to the extent of granting that branch of the Law Firm’s motion dismissing Simon’s firat counterclaim for legal malpractice (Bender Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP v Simon, 65 AD3d 499 [lst Dept 20091 [the AD Decision]). Simon’s subsequent motion for clarification of the AD Decision, or alternatively leave to appeal, was denied in its entirety on March 9, 2010. Simon then served an Amended Answer, dated May 2 5 , 2010, which asserts, inter alia, five counterclaims: return of the purportedly diverted escrow funds (first); \refund of legal fees
paid to [the Law Firm]" (second)  ; "refund of overcharges for fees fee paid to [the Law Firm]" (third & fourth); and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (fifth). The Law Firm now moves to di’smiss the second through fifth counterclaims asserted in the Amended Answer. "

"The third Counterclaim purportedly states a fee overcharge claim, seeking a refund of the legal  funds paid to the Law Firm. It alleges that the Law Firm overcharged and collected excessive
and unreasonable fees, by, inter alia, "not assigning the matter and specific tasks to the most competent and efficient staff/counsel,,, "spending excessive and redundant time on tasks,"
"utilizing three attorneys who appeared at trial ," and ‘failing to properly prepare for trial." A party may bring a claim to recover legal fees already paid to his or her attorney on the grounds that the fees were excessive (see Boslia v Green berq, 63 AD3d 973 [2nd Dept 2005] ) , and such claim is not considered duplicative of a legal malpractice claim (&; see also Loria v Cerniqlia, 69 AD3d 583 [2d Dept 20101). Therefore, contrary to the Law Firm’s argument, the mere fact that the third
counterclaim is based upon similar conduct raised in the legal malpractice action does not warrant its dismissal. Thus, Simon shall be granted leave to amend the answer to include the third
counterclaim for a legal fee overcharge and the court shall deny dismissal of the counterclaim."