Standing is a very important issue in legal malpractice.  The public policy reasoning behind this stiff standard is that every case, whether criminal or civil would be followed by a legal malpractice case if standing were not an issue.  So it is in Arnold v Devane  2014 NY Slip Op 08534  Decided on December 4, 2014  Appellate Division, Third Department

The wife’s case: 
"Initially, we agree with defendant’s assertion that Supreme Court should have dismissed Arnold’s claims because there was no attorney-client relationship between her and defendant upon which a legal malpractice claim can be based. A legal malpractice claim requires the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Huffner v Ziff, Weiermiller, Hayden & Mustico, LLP, 55 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2008]; Peak v Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C., 28 AD3d [*2]1028, 1030 [2006]; Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d 606, 609 [2004]). Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff retained defendant to act as his attorney to defend him against the criminal charges. It does not allege an attorney-client relationship between Arnold and defendant; the entirety of Arnold’s claim is derivative in nature. "

The Husband’s cased:

"In a legal malpractice claim, proximate cause is established by demonstrating that "but for the attorney’s negligence, [the plaintiff] would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages" (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 115 AD3d 228, 236-237 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; see Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d at 610; see also Gioeli v Vlachos, 89 AD3d 984, 985 [2011]; Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 498 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]). Stated differently, "[t]he test is whether a proper defense would have altered the result of the prior action" (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) which, in the context of a criminal action, requires proof that the criminal defendant would not have been convicted (see Britt v Legal Aid Socy., 95 NY2d 443, 446 [2000]). Further, "[f]or malpractice actions arising from allegations of negligent representation in a criminal matter, the plaintiff must have at least a colorable claim of actual innocence" (Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 350-351 [2012]; see Britt v Legal Aid Socy., 95 NY2d at 446-447). We find that a colorable claim has been demonstrated here based upon plaintiff’s expressed assertions of innocence, together with our reversal of the judgment of conviction, as well as the District Attorney’s decision not to reprosecute plaintiff and the consequent dismissal of the indictment (see generally Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d at 173).

Although defendant acknowledges some errors in his representation of plaintiff and offers explanations for his trial strategies and failures, he argues nevertheless that none of his deficiencies caused plaintiff’s conviction. We reject defendant’s assertion that our previous determination that the conviction was in accord with the weight of the evidence precludes a finding that plaintiff would not have been convicted in the absence of defendant’s alleged [*3]deficiencies. Our evaluation of the weight of the evidence was based upon the evidence as it was presented to the jury and does not resolve the question of whether plaintiff would have been convicted had counsel been effective. Similarly, defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s conviction was based on the jury’s finding that the victim was credible, and not on his own failures, ignores the fact that this Court expressly found defendant’s representation to be ineffective, in part, because he did not sufficiently challenge the victim’s credibility or impeach the victim with her prior inconsistent statements — actions that were essential to mount an effective defense precisely because "the People’s case rested almost entirely upon the credibility of the victim" (People v Arnold, 85 AD3d at 1333).

In addition, in reversing the judgment of conviction, we noted, among other things, defendant’s "directionless and largely ineffective" questioning of plaintiff’s own witnesses, as well as the fact that defendant elicited testimony from those witnesses which served to bolster the People’s case (id. at 1334). Defendant’s motion is devoid of competent proof establishing that plaintiff would have been convicted, even in the absence of the multiple deficiencies that were described. Thus, although we recognize that, inasmuch as plaintiff was not retried and acquitted it may be difficult for him to ultimately meet his burden of establishing at trial that he would not have been convicted in the absence of defendant’s negligence (see Britt v Legal Aid Socy., 95 NY2d at 446-447), we find that defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden on this motion of establishing a lack of proximate cause (compare Bixby v Somerville, 62 AD3d 1137, 1139 [2009]). Therefore, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of fact.

Nor has defendant met his initial burden of establishing plaintiff’s inability to prove damages. Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged pecuniary damages (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d at 350-351; Brownell v LeClaire, 96 AD3d 1336, 1338 [2012]), i.e., damages that "compensate the victim for the economic consequences of the injury" (Wilson v City of New York, 294 AD2d 290, 292 [2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit."