Sometimes the attorney representing a client is actually retained by the client, and sometimes the attorney is provided to the client.  In one recurring situation, union members are provided with legal representation.  The member (plaintiff) does not have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney.  That relationship and the privity that is created is between the union and the attorney, and the member may not sue the attorney for legal malpractice.

in Cruz v United Fedn. of Teachers  ;2011 NY Slip Op 33499(U); December 23, 2011
Supreme Court, New York County; Docket Number: 103386/11; Judge: Eileen A. Rakower the client-member was a teacher who was charged with "unsatisfactory performance, misconduct or other disciplinary charges"  From there it was on to a "rubber room."  From the decision:

"Based upon the charges against her, Plaintiff was placed on an Ineligible Inquiry List, was removed from her teaching responsibilities, and was placed in a Temporary Reassignment Center – otherwise known as a “rubber room.” Plaintiff states that she provided UFT with timely notice
of the charges and her reassignment. UFT then called upon defendant New York State Unified Teachers (“NYSUT”) to represent Plaintiff in her Education Law $3020-a hearing. Defendants Sandner and Rubinstein were assigned to be Plaintiffs attorneys concerning her disciplinary charges.

Plaintiff claims that Sandner and Rubinstein failed to adequately represent Plaintiff during the course of her disciplinary proceeding. Specifically she states that during the two year pendency of her disciplinary charges, they never moved to have the charges dismissed or dropped; and that during the proceedings, they failed to “raise jurisdictional or other objections to the disciplinary hearing process.”

In 2008, during her- disciplinary proceeding, Plaintiff, along with other teachers, filed a lawsuit against UFT alleging, inter alia, that UFT (1) failed to honor its obligations to Plaintiff and to other teachers who were reassigned to the “rubber room” and facing disciplinary charges; (2) was discriminating against Plaintiff and (3) that UFT was failing to fairly represent her. Plaintiff alleges that, in response to, and in retaliation for commencing the lawsuit against UFT, defendant Moerdler, a UFT attorney, advised NYSUT, Sandner and Rubinstein that they should end their representation of Plaintiff. Sandner and Rubinstein complied and moved to withdraw as Plaintiffs attorneys, citing a conflict of interest. After the arbitrator granted Sandner and Rubinstein’s motion to withdraw, Plaintiff proceeded pro se. After the hearing, the Arbitrator issued a decision dated
December 1,2008 finding Plaintiff guilty of ten out of the 14 specifications brought against her (see Cruz v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 20 10 NY Slip Op 5001 6U [Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 20101) (denying Plaintiffs Article 75 petition challenging the termination). Plaintiff claims that her termination was the result of her pro se status and her inability to adequately defend herself.

Here, the court finds that Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed. Petitioner’s DFR claim is clearly barred by the four-month statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 52 17(2)(a), which provides:
Any action or proceeding against an employee organization subject to article fourteen of the civil service law or article twenty of the labor law which complains that such employee organization has breached its duty of fair representation regarding someone to whom such employee organization has a duty shall be commenced within four months of the  date the employee or former employee knew or should have known that the breach has occurred, or within four months of the date the employee or former employee suffers actual harm, whichever is later. Further, the court notes that, even if timely, Plaintiff fails to state a DFR cause of action.

Plaintiff‘s additional claims are preempted by her DFR claim, and may not be asserted in order to circumvent the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see Roman v. Ciq Emples. Union Local 237, 300 A.D.2d 142 [lst Dept. 20021 (“The expedient of characterizing a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation as one  for breach of contract is unavailing to avoid the four-month limitations period prescribed in CPLR 2 17(2)(a)”); Mamorella v. Derkasch, 276 A.D.2d 152, 155 [4th Dept. 20003 (“attorneys who perform services for and on behalf of a union may not
be held liable in malpractice to individual grievants where the services performed constitute part of the collective bargaining process.. .. Plaintiff is limited to bringing an action against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation.”).