The least understood part of legal malpractice litigation is the “but  for” standard, in which Plaintiff must demonstrate that “but for” the negligence (or departure) of the attorney, plaintiff would have enjoyed a better or more economically favorable outcome.  In most instances plaintiff correctly recognizes the departure, and the damages are often self-evident.  This is

Attorneys who are the subject of counter-claims of legal malpractice often denigrate the quality of the counterclaim by arguing that it merely a reflexive way of not paying their bill.  Sometimes they are right, which devalues the balance of well-pleaded legal malpractice claims.  Sometimes the threat of a legal malpractice case has even shakier footing.  

Sometimes what appears to be a clear and convincing description of a mistake by an attorney fails to elicit approval from Supreme Court or from the Appellate Division.  One reads the introduction to a decision, and it’s almost -wham- “that sounds like a real departure”.  Then you read the balance of the decision, and the

For social policy reasons, courts have severely limited the class of persons who may sue an attorney for legal malpractice.  The alternative, courts have often held, is chaos.  After every case, no matter who wins, the losing party will sue both attorneys.  There will be two legal malpractice cases for every regular case!  The same