A constant in legal malpractice litigation is the fact that it always arises from a former representation of the client by the attorney.  How does the underlying record influence or limit the scope of legal malpractice.  Take the example of a company getting information from its attorney and acting on that information.  Assume that the

Legal malpractice claims, in contradistinction to all other professional negligence claims,  enjoy an extra layer of protection for the attorney. Not only must one find a departure from good practice, which proximately damaged the client, but (and only in legal malpractice) one must meet the “exacting standard” that but for the attorney’s negligence the outcome

We’ve written over and over that the statute of limitations in legal malpractice is 3 years pursuant to CPLR 214(6) and aside from continuing representation, there is no possible extension.  There is no discovery statute of limitations, and the statute is commenced when the mistake is made.  We have been absolutely solid on that until

Only clients may sue their attorney in legal malpractice.  It really does not matter (so much) whether the attorney made a mistake that hurt you.  What matters is whether you (and that means you, not your father) hired the attorney.  So, beneficiaries to estates that don’t get what they should can rarely sue the attorney

Trustees, just like regular prople, put their trust in attorneys.  After all, the attorney can be trusted to take care of the details, no?  Anyway, the attorney is sure to send a bill.  In this situation, the trust in the attorneys rigor was misplaced.

Ianiro v Bachman  2015 NY Slip Op 06709  Decided on September