Legal malpractice in child custody / child support settings is notoriously difficult to prove. To begin, there is often a privity problem. If that issue is solved, then the speculation question of “what would the judge have done if…” comes up. It seems that this was the shortcoming in Chaudhuri v Kilmer 2018 NY Slip
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.
Not a Limited Engagement Letter
Attorneys are expected zealously to represent clients, all within the cannons of ethics, of course. However, “that wasn’t my job” or “I wasn’t retained to do that” is a frequent defense in legal malpractice cases. Exeter Law Group LLP v Immortalana Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 01269 [158 AD3d 576] February 22, 2018 Appellate Division,…
The Common Interest Privilege in Discovery
The Second Department gives a black-letter lecture on the common interest privilege, in a legal malpractice setting. Saint Annes Dev. Co. v Russ 2018 NY Slip Op 00451 [157 AD3d 919]
January 24, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department holds that:
“The common-interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a…
What Is Required to Avoid Summary Judgment?
In Bakcheva v Law Offs. of Stein & Assoc. 2019 NY Slip Op 00844 Decided on February 6, 2019 the Second Department gives an example of what must be demonstrated by plaintiff to avoid summary judgment on a claim of legal malpractice.
“In January 2012, the plaintiff purchased a penthouse apartment on the seventh floor…
Accounting Malpractice and So Much More
Epiphany Community Nursery Sch. v Levey 2019 NY Slip Op 00842 Decided on February 5, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Singh, J., J. is not primarily about accounting malpractice. That nugget is merely part of a much larger fraud which seemed to swamp a NYC private school. The intra-familial fraud is stunning.
“In 1973 Wendy…
Short and Sweet Denial of Judiciary Law 487 Motion
It’s the oldest law in anglo-american jurisprudence; it’s rarely applied and even more rarely applied successfully. Here is a swing and miss in Matter of B. (Anonymous), also known as L. (Anonymous) Motion No: 2016-10028 Slip Opinion No: 2019 NY Slip Op 62045(U) Decided on February 1, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision.
“Motion…
A Short Course in Contribution and Indemnity
Board of Mgrs. of Manhattan Place Condominium v 616 First Ave., LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30216(U) January 25, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652240/17
Judge: Frank P. Nervo is an excellent primer on the law of contribution and indemnity. In this property construction setting, there is none available.
“The underlying action…
How A Lawfirm May Limit Its Retainer Letter
Clients rightfully expect the retainer lawyer to engage zealously on their behalf. What are the limits of such representation? How does the lawfirm correctly limit its obligations to the client. It starts by following the rules for a retainer agreement or a letter of engagement set forth in 22 NYCRR § 1215.
Banished From Court and Case Dismissed
It’s seen from time to time, but rarely. Pro-se plaintiffs are deprived of the right to file a lawsuit or to file motions because the Court becomes so irritated by their filings. Strujan v Kaufman & Kahn, LLP 2019 NY Slip Op 00630 Decided on January 30, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department is an example.…
The Shortest Opinion Ever?
Louis F. Burke PC v Aezah 2019 NY Slip Op 00557 Decided on January 29, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department may be the shortest AD1 opinion of recent memory.
Here is the entirety: “Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Benjamin Cohen, J.), entered January 3, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as…