A recurring theme in legal malpractice litigation is discovery of communications between the client and attorneys. While the attorney-client privilege is waived in a legal malpractice setting between plaintiff-client and defendant-attorney, the question still comes up with subsequent attorneys. Different from the attorney-client privilege is the common-interest privilege. Saint Annes Dev. Co. v Russ 2018
Uncategorized
Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard in a Sanctions Case
Plaintiff sued under Judiciary Law § 487 and was promptly the subject of sanctions and dismissal. Supreme Court granted both, and an appeal ensued. In Liang v Wei Ji 2017 NY Slip Op 08361
Decided on November 29, 2017 Appellate Division, Second Department, the Court affirmed because plaintiff had previously been enjoined from starting any…
The Appellate Term Says: Not So Quickly!
Weintraub v Petervary 2017 NY Slip Op 51595(U) Decided on November 16, 2017 Appellate Term, Second Department is an example of how lower courts over-determine cases in favor of the attorney and to the detriment of the client. Legal malpractice cases, we have argued in the past, are dismissed at a greater rate than in…
Judiciary Law 487 Differences from the Other Side
Last week we discussed how the First Department differs in its handling of Judiciary Law § 487 cases. Here in Gorbatov v Tsirelman 2017 NY Slip Op 07979 Decided on November 15, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department is a further lesson, this time from the Second Department. Conspicuously missing here is any language of delinquency. …
Several Straightforward Lessons from the First Department
O’Neal v Muchnick Golieb & Golieb, P.C. 2017 NY Slip Op 03125 [149 AD3d 636] April 25, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department is notable for several terse lessons. They were set forth in bullet fashion in the opinion:
“The allegation that, while representing plaintiff in the assignment-of-lease negotiations, counsel secretly represented the counterparty so as…
Not Judiciary Law 487, Not GBL 349, Not Dismissible
Legal malpractice cases traditionally hew to the Legal Malpractice – Breach of Contract – Breach of Fiduciary axis. Outlier cases add in some exotic causes of action. Gleyzerman v Law Offs. of Arthur Gershfeld & Assoc., PLLC 2017 NY Slip Op 07200 Decided on October 12, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department is a overbilling case,…
How Did They Get This Wrong?
Either Volvo owned the car and leased it to the auto accident defendant or it did not. Simple issue, no? How did this simple issue morph into an auto accident trial where Jacoby & Meyers represented plaintiff and the proofs were not in place before the jury. More puzzling, how did this proof elude the…
Out Of State Rules Kill A New York Legal Malpractice Case
Centre Lane Partners, LLC v Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP 2017 NY Slip Op 07221 Decided on October 17, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department illustrates two rules. One of the rules is the borrowing statute, and the second is one that is both out-of-state and foreign to NY jurisprudence.
The borrowing statute, in…
Some Interesting Points on Continuous Representation
An elderly couple sells some real estate and want to insulate the proceeds for estate planning purposes, specifically Medicare planning. They have to make the transaction such that they keep the proceeds and shield them from a 5 year look-back review by Medicare. As a reader of this blog, you surmise that something goes wrong. …
Problems Serving the Defendant? Look at “Good Cause” and “Interests of Justice”
Wright v Kok-Min Kyan 2017 NY Slip Op 32057(U) September 28, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 805475/2016 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower is a medical malpractice case that explains what to do when service of the summons and complaint has gone awry.
“Plaintiffs served the Summons with Notice upon Lenox Hill Hospital by…