Settlements including pleas to criminal charges are the linchpin of an orderly system of justice.  As any prosecutor, and indeed, any litigator knows, only a very small portion of cases can be tried to a fact finder.  if 95% of all civil cases, and a similar amount of criminal cases were not subject to disposition by voluntary settlement, the staggering numbers of cases would quickly overwhelm the entire system.

So the Court of Appeals found in People v Peque 2013 NY Slip Op 07651   Decided on November 19, 2013   Court of Appeals   Abdus-Salaam, J. for criminal cases, and so it is in matrimonial cases.  In Peque   the question of deportation and the low level of understanding may constitute lack of due process, and in legal malpractice litigation after Katebi v. Fink. 51 AD3d 424 (1st Dept, 2008).   In criminal law, "the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant" and requires that the defendant be told of the significant consequences of a plea.  No such obligation is found in settling a matrimonial case and being asked whether the attorney’s work is satisfactory. 
 It is customary in settlement of a matrimonial action to inquire of the litigants whether they are satisfied with the work of their attorneys.  When they are told (in rote fashion) to say "yes", the suffer the consequence of losing any legal malpractice rights later.  "While "[a] claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel" (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]), here, the complaint is contradicted by the evidentiary material submitted on the motion to dismiss (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). Plaintiff testified that she did not wish to proceed with the trial of the matrimonial action, that she decided instead to enter into the stipulation of settlement because she wanted no further connection with her husband, that she understood that by settling the action before the completion of the trial she was foregoing the right to pursue the funds allegedly dissipated by him, and that she was satisfied with the services provided by her attorney. "