If one reads enough legal malpractice cases, there are interesting overlaps.  One such overlap, with surprising results came up today.  in Angeles v Aronsky   2013 NY Slip Op 02454   Decided on April 11, 2013   Appellate Division, First Department  we see the following: "For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, "a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence" (AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007] [internal citation omitted]). A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed "settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel" (Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]). "

It has been the law in NY for some time that a settlement of the underlying action that has been effectively compelled does not bar a subsequent legal malpractice action.  The overlap we speak of was created by a second decision in Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP   2013 NY Slip Op 50560(U)   Decided on April 5, 2013   Supreme Court, New York County   Kern, J.   Here, the Garnett claims were ultimately dismissed.  "Plaintiff commenced the instant action asserting, among other things, a claim for legal malpractice against defendant in relation to defendant’s representation of Boylan International, Inc. ("Boylan International") in an underlying rent non-payment action. Defendant now moves for an order granting it summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted."

"On or about October 22, 2008, plaintiff commenced the instant action. Plaintiff’s initial complaint contained five causes of action: (1) legal malpractice in failing to properly prepare for trial; (2) legal malpractice in failing to properly conduct the trial; (3) legal malpractice in negotiating and coercing the settlement; (4) legal malpractice in acting under a clear conflict of interest in coercing the settlement; and (5) fraud in attempting to dissuade Boylan International from taking action to vitiate the settlement. Fox Horan moved to dismiss the initial complaint and the court granted its motion. However, it also granted leave to amend the first three causes of action for legal malpractice. Boylan International then submitted its Amended Complaint and Fox Horan again moved to dismiss. The court granted Fox Horan’s motion and Boylan International appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division First Department reversed the lower court’s dismissal, reinstated the malpractice claims and remanded the case for response, discovery and trial. Fox Horan has now made the instant motion for summary judgment.On a motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. See Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). Once the movant establishes a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to "produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim." Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). However, "mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to defeat summary judgment. Id. "