Irony aside, there are a significant number of failures in legal malpractice litigation. These failures are aside from cases which seek to push the limits of the statute of limitations, continuous representation and non-privity claims. This can be seen in a series of cases by one pro-se plaintiff against one set of attorneys. The cases
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened his private law office and took his first legal malpractice case.
Since 1989, Bluestone has become a leader in the New York Plaintiff’s Legal Malpractice bar, handling a wide array of plaintiff’s legal malpractice cases arising from catastrophic personal injury, contracts, patents, commercial litigation, securities, matrimonial and custody issues, medical malpractice, insurance, product liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, foreclosures and has defended attorneys in a limited number of legal malpractice cases.
Bluestone also took an academic role in field, publishing the New York Attorney Malpractice Report from 2002-2004. He started the “New York Attorney Malpractice Blog” in 2004, where he has published more than 4500 entries.
Mr. Bluestone has written 38 scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning legal malpractice, many in the Outside Counsel column of the New York Law Journal. He has appeared as an Expert witness in multiple legal malpractice litigations.
Mr. Bluestone is an adjunct professor of law at St. John’s University College of Law, teaching Legal Malpractice. Mr. Bluestone has argued legal malpractice cases in the Second Circuit, in the New York State Court of Appeals, each of the four New York Appellate Divisions, in all four of the U.S. District Courts of New York and in Supreme Courts all over the state. He has also been admitted pro haec vice in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida and was formally admitted to the US District Court of Connecticut and to its Bankruptcy Court all for legal malpractice matters. He has been retained by U.S. Trustees in legal malpractice cases from Bankruptcy Courts, and has represented municipalities, insurance companies, hedge funds, communications companies and international manufacturing firms. Mr. Bluestone regularly lectures in CLEs on legal malpractice.
Based upon his professional experience Bluestone was named a Diplomate and was Board Certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys in 2008 in Legal Malpractice. He remains Board Certified. He was admitted to The Best Lawyers in America from 2012-2019. He has been featured in Who’s Who in Law since 1993.
In the last years, Mr. Bluestone has been featured for two particularly noteworthy legal malpractice cases. The first was a settlement of an $11.9 million dollar default legal malpractice case of Yeo v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman which was reported in the NYLJ on August 15, 2016. Most recently, Mr. Bluestone obtained a rare plaintiff’s verdict in a legal malpractice case on behalf of the City of White Plains v. Joseph Maria, reported in the NYLJ on February 14, 2017. It was the sole legal malpractice jury verdict in the State of New York for 2017.
Bluestone has been at the forefront of the development of legal malpractice principles and has contributed case law decisions, writing and lecturing which have been recognized by his peers. He is regularly mentioned in academic writing, and his past cases are often cited in current legal malpractice decisions. He is recognized for his ample writings on Judiciary Law § 487, a 850 year old statute deriving from England which relates to attorney deceit.
Legal Malpractice History: From Genesis to Today
We’re excited to report that the New York Law Journal published this Outside Counsel Column today.
“Legal Malpractice Principles arose in medieval common law. It is linked with and has become more clearly intertwined with ancient deceit statutes with the Court of Appeals’ determination that Judiciary Law § 487 controls over attorney conduct are not…
A Big Case, But Too Late
The statute of limitations has a number of purposes, one of which is to end stale cases, another of which is to quiet old controversies. Giller v Kate, Nussman, Ellis Farhi & Earle, LLP
2019 NY Slip Op 32301(U) July 31, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156885/2018 Judge: W. Franc…
Sure, There Were Mistakes, But…
Manhattan real estate is a steady source of legal malpractice cases. It sometimes seems that there are too few clients, as conflict of interest claims often accompany the legal malpractice claims. Here, too, defendant is accused of having too many clients in187 St. Mazal Manager, LLC v Herrick Feinstein LLP 2019 NY Slip…
The Purpose of Damages in a Judiciary Law 487 Setting
Judiciary Law § 487 is the oldest statute in the US common law, dating from medieval English law. It’s purpose is to regulate and punish deceit by attorneys. The First Department looks at the purpose of Judiciary Law § 487 damages in Jean v Chinitz 2018 NY Slip Op 05521 [163 AD3d 497] July 26,…
Matrimonial Cases and Legal Malpractice: An Uneasy Fit
Garr Silpe, P.C. v Gorman 2019 NY Slip Op 32248(U) July 26, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650247/2017 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed illustrates the uneasy fit between matrimonial cases and legal malpractice. Almost overwhelmingly, the legal malpractice comes up as a counterclaim in an attorney-fee case, rather than as a claim. Often,…
Some Damages Well Alleged, Some Not
Most people fixate on the first element of legal malpractice – departure from good practice. Leeder v Antonucci 2019 NY Slip Op 05898 Decided on July 31, 2019
Appellate Division, Fourth Department looks at the last of the elements – ascertainable damages, as well as examines continuous representation in a statute of limitations setting.
“We…
Stocks and Speculation and Legal Malpractice
Predictions of future behavior based upon past behavior are possible, but often perceived as speculative. In legal malpractice settings past behavior can negatively affect the court’s view on what would have happened in the hypothetical future. This concept is demonstrated by Lisi v Lowenstein Sandler LLP 2019 NY Slip Op 01665 [170 AD3d 461] March…
Seminal Legal Malpractice Principles Illustrated
Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP 2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [168 AD3d 70] December 27, 2018 Singh, J. Appellate Division, First Department illustrates some important and bedrock doctrines found in legal malpractice: the “but for” requirement, the “successor attorney” doctrine and the question of “duplication.”
“In July 2013, plaintiff sought to temporarily move…
An Adequately Pled Judiciary Law 487 Claim
It’s rare to see a Judiciary Law § 487 Claim; even rarer to see one that survives motion practice. Gerard Fox Law, P.C. v Vortex Group, LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 32065(U) July 9, 2019
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 654794/2018 Judge: Andrew Borrok is a case which makes the successful leap.
“This…