One of the unique elements of legal malpractice is the requirement of privity. Privity of contract (or representation) is an ancient concept, which states that only those in direct contract may be held responsible for harm. It is the opposite of generalized tort liability. Familiar to law students, privity giving way to generalized tort liability
Legal Malpractice Cases
Down But Not Out, Continued
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Last week we looked at the statute of limitations in legal malpractice and how that interacted with CPLR 203 which allowed a counterclaim as an offset. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP v Law Firm of Howard Mann 2016 NY Slip Op 05487 Decided on July 13, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department also has a…
Down But Not Out in a Legal Malpractice Counterclaim
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Law firms traditionally wait three years and a day before suing for unpaid legal fees, and fall into the gap between the three year statute for a feared legal malpractice counterclaim and the six year statute for contract claims. So was the case in Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP v Law Firm of Howard …
Enough To Vacate…Enough to Dismiss?
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Continuous representation can bring in a firm long after the case has begun. One example is an attorney who is retained to handle a case, and then takes the case to a new firm with him. The new firm, under proper circumstances, can be held liable to the client.
In Passeri v Tomlins 2016 NY…
Lots of Money Involved, But No Ascertainable Damages Shown
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Plaintiff is married to a former movie star, and late in life she seeks to revoke an irrevocable trust. The money in the trust was hers prior to marriage, and in the transaction plaintiff nets $2 Million rather than $50,000. He sues nevertheless.
Gallet, Dreyer & Berkey, LLP v Basile 2016 NY Slip Op 05332…
Much Brush Cast Aside; Legal Malpractice Case Remains in Play
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Board of Mgrs. of 325 Fifth Ave. Condominium v Continental Residential Holdings LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31230(U) June 27, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154764/12 Judge: Kelly A. O’Neill Levy is a very dense luxury high rise construction case arising from a building on 5th Avenue in Manhattan. Justice O’Neill Levy…
Many Causes of Action, Mostly Time-Barred
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Loans were given and mortgages taken. The mortgages were no properly recorded after closing. Some time passed, and the borrowers stopped paying. An easy solution, no? In this case, not an easy solution. All of the claims discussed in this appeal are time barred.
Yarbro v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2016 NY Slip Op 05236 …
Your Lawyers are More or Less Free To Talk About You
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
In a dense (actually very dense) opinion, the First Department has determined that under certain circumstances, your attorneys are fee to discuss your case amongst themselves, and may do so in an air of confidentiality…they need not tell you what they discussed.
Stock v Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 2016 NY Slip Op 05247 …
Discovery, Adverse Inference and Sanctions in a Legal Malpractice Case
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Playing around with big corporations in a legal malpractice setting requires huge gulps of discovery. One might expect 10,000+ emails, tons of testimony and millions of paper documents. What happens when plaintiff produces only one e-mail?
Arbor Realty Funding, LLC v Herrick, Feinstein LLP 2016 NY Slip Op 05065 Decided on June 28, 2016 Appellate…
There is Something Here, But Pruning Is In Order
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone on
Posted in Legal Malpractice Cases
Plaintiffs, especially those who do not regularly dabble in legal malpractice tend to think that more is better…more causes of action, more theories of the case, etc. Often these complaints have a nugget of meritorious fact, but they will be cleaned out by the court. Such is the case in Martin v Claude Castro & …