Legal malpractice litigation is a complicated matter, with the need to prove hypothetical outcomes, requirements for experts, and proofs that things would have come out differently. It is not for the faint of heart. Pro-se litigants do poorly here.

In Kovitz v Wenig, Ginsberg, Saltiel & Greene, LLP ; 2011 NY Slip Op 50768(U) ; Appellate Term, Second Department we see one such unfortunate outcome. "Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking to recover $2,000 as a result of defendant’s alleged legal malpractice. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had retained defendant to commence an action for illegal eviction "done by lock-out without a warrant." Plaintiff stated that defendant had repeatedly failed to properly serve a necessary party to the action, which had resulted in the dismissal of that action. Plaintiff further asserted that defendant had failed to verify the necessary party’s residence or effectuate service through alternative methods. A partner in defendant’s firm testified that her firm could not properly serve the necessary party because plaintiff had provided the firm with the party’s incorrect addresses, and plaintiff had refused to pay the cost of an investigator to ascertain the party’s actual residence. The partner further contended that, in any event, defendant had failed to prove his damages. The Civil Court found that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice and dismissed the action. "

"The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000])." "Since the court’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed"