Glens Falls:    In this case two fundamental mistakes plague the attorney.  The first got him into the legal malpractice case, and the second kept him from getting out.  A relatively straightforward employment agreement granted the manager the right to a "hearing" of sorts.  The attorney participated in a termination that did away with the "hearing." 

Rochester:   Pro se claims in general are regarded with skepticism, and even more so in legal malpractice. The Bar (and judiciary’s) take on legal malpractice cases in general is that they are reflex "dissatisfaction" cases, and are often meritless.  This applies with greater force to pro se cases, where the general thought is that plaintiff could

Albany:  Even when plaintiff points out a mistake that an attorney "unfamiliar with the Board’s apportionment doctrine" made  at the Workers’ Compensation hearing his argument that the Board would have found differently was "too speculative."  Result?  Case dismissed.

"Plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits as a result of a strained hip he sustained in the course