It was not said by Lord Acton that control of the bank account corrupts, and that absolute control of it  corrupts absolutely, but United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia  2014 NY Slip Op 00987 Decided on February 13, 2014  Appellate Division, Second Department does show that guardians who control their ward’s bank accounts can wreak havoc.
 

The surety insurance company came to be plaintiff after "defendant Camille A. Raia was appointed guardian of the property of Andrea S., an incapacitated person (hereinafter the IP). Raia obtained a guardianship bond through the plaintiff, United States Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter US Fire), as surety. During the course of the guardianship, Raia retained the defendant Cavalcante & Company (hereinafter C & C), an accounting firm, to prepare annual tax returns on behalf of the IP. Ultimately, Raia was removed as the guardian of the IP’s property as a result of a criminal investigation. The court accepted an account-stated as [*2]Raia’s final account for the period she acted as guardian of the IP’s property, and surcharged her in a certain amount. US Fire and the IP, through a successor guardian, entered into a stipulation by which the IP released US Fire from further liability under the bond and assigned all rights and causes of action to it in exchange for a payment in the amount of $1,100,000.

US Fire, on its own behalf and as the IP’s subrogee/assignee, commenced this action against Raia, Raia & Rondos, P.C. (hereinafter the R & R firm), Steven T. Rondos, C & C, and another defendant. US Fire alleged, with respect to C & C, that it committed professional malpractice by failing to detect unlawful withdrawals made from the IP’s investment account and to report the accounting irregularities.

US Fire settled with Raia, Rondos, and the R & R firm, and thereupon executed a release in favor of Raia, and a separate release in favor of Rondos and the R & R firm.

Raia moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing C & C’s cross claims insofar as asserted against her and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for an award of attorney’s fees.  The Supreme Court, in effect, granted those branches of the separate motions and denied the cross motion.

Raia, Rondos, and the R & R firm demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing C & C’s cross claim for contribution insofar as asserted against them. "A release given in good faith by the injured person to one tortfeasor as provided in [General Obligations Law § 15-108(a)] relieves him [or her] from liability to any other person for contribution as provided in article fourteen of the civil practice law and rules" (General Obligations Law § 15-108[b]). Here, US Fire, upon settling with Raia, Rondos, and the R & R firm, executed a release in favor of Raia, and a separate release in favor of Rondos and the R & R firm, and there is no evidence in the record indicating that the releases were not given in good faith. Thus, Raia, Rondos, and the R & R firm are relieved from liability to C & C for contribution (see Balkheimer v Spanton, 103 AD3d 603; Ziviello v O’Boyle, 90 AD3d 916, 917; Boeke v Our Lady of Pompei School, 73 AD3d 825, 826-827; Kagan v Jacobs, 260 AD2d 442, 442-443; Brown v Singh, 222 AD2d 392). In opposition, C & C failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

However, because C & C did not engage in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see South Point, Inc. v Redman, 94 AD3d 1086, 1087-1088; Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 66 AD3d 841, 842). "

One attorney represents a group of tenants / tenants-in-common in a construction project that runs afoul of the Department of Transportation in NYC.  The sticking point was whether a retaining wall, which the project sought to move was on City or private property.  In Wadsworth Condos LLC v Dollinger Gonski & Grossman   2014 NY Slip Op 00930   Decided on February 13, 2014   Appellate Division, First Department we see how plaintiff weaves a conflict of interest and affiadvits about how the attorneys sided with others, as well as demonstrating capacity to sue.
 

"Defendants preserved the defense that plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue derivatively on behalf of its co-tenant-in-common by asserting the defense in their answer (see CPLR 3211[a][3], 3211[e]; see also Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 837 [2007]). However, plaintiff adequately alleged injuries to the common entity and the futility of a demand thereon. "

"Plaintiff’s belatedly asserted grounds for alleging legal malpractice may be entertained since they involve no new factual allegations and no new theories of liability, and there is little or no basis on which defendants could claim surprise or prejudice (see generally Alarcon v UCAN White Plains Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 100 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2012]; Valenti v Camins, 95 AD3d 519 [1st Dept 2012]). The new claims raise issues of fact whether defendants were negligent in their legal representation of the tenants-in-common, and whether, but for the alleged negligent representation, the tenants-in-common would have been able to avoid the extensive delays in project construction that resulted in the loss of the construction loan, construction delay expenses, and increased attorneys’ fees. The tenants-in-common retained defendants initially to advise them with respect to a stop work order issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that prohibited further demolition until an appropriate permit was secured from DOT or the Department of Buildings. Rather than trying to secure a permit or obtain a definitive statement of the ownership of the retaining wall sought to be demolished, defendants reviewed a survey and deed and accepted DOT’s position that the wall was on city property, and entered into what became protracted negotiations with DOT. In moving for summary judgment, defendants did not submit an expert legal opinion as to the ownership of the wall (which is not clear from the record) or whether the failure to seek a demolition permit rather than engage in negotiations constituted negligence, issues that are beyond the ken of the ordinary person (see Nuzum v Field, [*2]106 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2013]; Cosmetics Plus Group, Ltd. v Traub, 105 AD3d 134, 141 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]).

As to the conflict of interest claim, while plaintiff was aware that defendants were representing the co-tenant-in-common, issues of fact exist whether defendants’ actions on behalf of the co-tenant-in-common were in conflict with the interests of the tenants-in-common, particularly since the tenant-in-common management agreement called for unanimous consent on material changes in the project. For example, an affidavit submitted by plaintiff says that plaintiff was not given notice of the switch from a condominium project to a rental project, which the co-tenant-in-common undertook while being advised by defendants. "

What is the difference between legal malpractice in tort and legal malpractice in contract, and how might an individual attorney in a LLP be liable for the fraud of another attorney?  Salazar v Sacco & Fillas, LLP   2014 NY Slip Op 00980   Decided on February 13, 2014   Appellate Division, Second Department has a simple fact pattern. 
 

"The plaintiff retained the defendants Sacco and Fillas, LLP (hereinafter the law firm), and attorneys Tonino Sacco and Elias Nikolaos Fillas, who allegedly were partners in the law firm, to represent him as a plaintiff in a personal injury action and to represent two corporate entities that he controlled, Always First, Inc., and Always Fast, Inc. (hereinafter together the Always companies), in connection with certain commercial litigation.

The law firm settled the personal injury action on behalf of the plaintiff, and received certain settlement proceeds on the plaintiff’s behalf. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the Always companies, as "the client," and the law firm entered into an agreement (hereinafter the Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement provided that, in exchange for the law firm’s agreement to "discount outstanding balances" due the law firm from the Always companies, "the client" agreed to give up all rights to certain sums due "the client" from three enumerated litigations.

The plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant action, seeking to recover damages he allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants’ legal malpractice, breach of contract, and fraud. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendants breached the retainer agreement relating to the personal injury action in that they intentionally failed to pay him the settlement funds from that [*2]action. The plaintiff also alleges that he was fraudulently induced into signing the Settlement Agreement. "
 

Legal malpractice was dismissed because "Supreme Court, upon concluding that the complaint alleged intentional acts only, granted the defendants’ motion only insofar as it sought to dismiss the first cause of action, sounding in legal malpractice."

But what of Breach of Contract and Fraud?  "The complaint adequately states a cause of action against the defendants sounding in breach of contract.

To state a cause of action sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must allege that "(1) the defendant made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and which the defendant knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury" (Selechnik v Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 82 AD3d 1077, 1078; see McDonnell v Bradley, 109 AD3d 592, 592-593). In the instant matter, the complaint alleged that Fillas, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff and the Always companies, made certain false statements, including, inter alia, misrepresenting the amount of past-due attorney’s fees owed by the Always companies, and falsely stating, in effect, that he could sue the plaintiff personally for the sums allegedly owed by the Always companies. The complaint further alleged that these statements were known by Fillas to be false at the time they were made, and were intended to deceive, coerce, and induce the plaintiff into entering into the Settlement Agreement, and that the plaintiff relied on these statements to his detriment. Accordingly, these allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action alleging fraud against Fillas and the law firm (see Partnership Law §§ 24, 25, 26[e]; Rabos v R & R Bagels & Bakery, Inc., 100 AD3d 849)."

When might the individual attorney be responsible for the fraud of another partner in an LLP? 

"However, the complaint fails to state a cause of action sounding in fraud against Sacco. As a general matter, Partnership Law § 26(a)(1) imposes joint and several liability upon all individual partners in a partnership for all obligations chargeable to the partnership under Partnership Law §§ 24 and 25, which are referable to wrongful acts committed by one or more partners of the partnership acting in the ordinary course of partnership business. Partnership Law § 26(b), however, immunizes from individual liability any partner in a partnership registered as a limited liability partnership who did not commit the underlying wrongful act, except to the extent that Partnership Law § 26(c) imposes liability on that partner where he or she directly supervised the person who committed the wrongful act and Partnership Law § 26(d) imposes liability on that partner where he or she had previously agreed to assume individual liability for wrongs committed by another partner. Although, at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiff " need only set forth sufficient information to apprise defendants of the alleged wrongs’" (Selechnik v Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 82 AD3d at 1079, quoting DDJ Mgt., LLC v Rhone Group L.L.C., 78 AD3d 442, 443), the complaint fails to allege facts apprising Sacco of the basis of his individual liability. The complaint does not allege that Sacco personally committed a fraudulent act. Nor does the complaint allege that the law firm is a general partnership or that, as such, Sacco may be held individually liable pursuant to Partnership Law § 26(a)(1). Furthermore, the complaint does not allege that the law firm is a registered limited liability partnership, but that Sacco supervised Fillas in the commission of a fraudulent act, thus rendering Sacco individually liable pursuant to Partnership Law § 26(c), or that Sacco had previously agreed to assume personal liability for fraudulent acts committed by Fillas, thus rendering Sacco individually liable pursuant to Partnership Law § 26(d). The allegations in the complaint particularizing Fillas’s fraudulent conduct, standing alone, are insufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud against Sacco (see Partnership Law § 26[b], [d]; Selechnik v Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 82 AD3d at 1079). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the fraud cause of action insofar as [*3]asserted against Sacco. "

W.S. Corp. v Cullen and Dykman LLP  2014 NY Slip Op 30353(U)  February 5, 2014  Sup Ct, New York County  Docket Number: 654176/12  Judge: Marcy S. Friedman is a CPLR 3211 decision based upon a large number of claims.  Basically, its sibling v. sibling, each of which have enjoyed the benefits of a trust and income from a company.  Now they are at odds.  One law firm has helped for years and sided with the more alpha of the siblings.  Now, there is litigation.

"The action arises out of a dispute between siblings. The Baugher plaintiffs and their brothers, Jeffrey and Kirk Baugher, were all presumptive remainder beneficiaries of a trust. (Complaint 23.) Their mother, Phebe Baugher, was lifetime income beneficiary of the trust and a de facto trustee until her death on November 4, 2008. (Id., 22, 27.) Jeffrey was appointed by Phebe as a trustee and served in that capacity without official appointment by the Surrogates Court. (Id., 28.) In addition, he was a director of the Company’s board, and was appointed as its president in January 2007′ after the death of another brother who had been president. (Id.,46.) The complaint alleges that Cullen engaged in conflicted simultaneous representation of the Company on the one hand, and Jeffrey and Kirk on the other. (Id., 12.)

More particularly, the complaint alleges:
"Cullen aided and abetted Jeff in breaching his fiduciary duties as an officer and director of W.S. Wilson, and as a trustee of the trust that owned the Company, by engaging with him and/or Kirk to develop a strategy ("the Strategy") to exclude the Baugher Plaintiffs from the operation and management of the Company in order to ensure that a claim for more than $22 million of its retained earnings would be preserved for Phebe or Phebe’s Estate, of which Kirk and Jeff became
the primary beneficiaries under a will that Cullen drafted and had Phebe execute days after being discharged from the hospital." (Id., 14.) Cullen allegedly gave legal advice to Jeffrey which he used as a basis for the Company not to hold meetings of the board of directors on which the Baugher plaintiffs had previously served. (Id., 16, 32-33, 56-70.) Cullen also allegedly gave legal advice to Jeffrey on the basis of which the Company did not recognize the Baugher plaintiffs as shareholders after the termination of the trust. (Id.,16.) As the complaint further alleges, Cullen’s conflict of interest caused plaintiffs to become embroiled in numerous litigations and to incur legal fees that would not otherwise have been incurred. (Id., 237-241.)" 

"An attorney’s conflict of interest, as a result of dual representation of clients in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (22 NYCRR 1200.24), does not alone support a cause of action for legal malpractice. However, ‘"liability can follow where the client can show that he … suffered actual damage as a result of the conflict."’ (Kaminsky v Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 59 AD3d 1, 13 [1st Dept 2008], Iv denied 12 NY3d 715, quoting Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d 606, 610 ‘
[2d Dept 2004]; Pillard v Goodman, 82 AD3d 541, 542 [t5t Dept 2011]; Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2008].) In seeking dismissal, Cullen argues that its conduct was not the proximate cause of the cited litigations. (D. ‘s Memo. In Support at 14.) This issue cannot be determined as a matter of law on this record. The pleadings on their face allege Cullen’s conflict of interest and damages in the form of attorney’s fees incurred by the Company as a result. The documentary evidence, which consists of selected pleadings, decisions, or other papers in the various litigations in which Cullen allegedly had a conflict, does not demonstrate that the conflict did not result in damage to the Company. At least some of the litigations arguably involved a conflict of interest. For example, in July 2009, one month before Cullen withdrew as counsel for the Company, it filed a petition on behalf of Kirk, as preliminary executor of Phebe’s Estate, seeking turnover of the Company’s retained earnings from the trust. (Complaint, 186, 187.) While the lawsuit was brought against the trust rather than the Company,1 the estate and the Company arguably had differing interests with respect to the disposition of the retained earnings. Another example of a lawsuit that apparently involved a direct conflict was an Article 78 proceeding brought by plaintiffs Laraine and Lisa Baugher to compel Jeffrey, as president of the Company, to call a special meeting of the board of directors. The complaint alleges that although Cullen did not formally appear for Jeffrey in this proceeding, it assisted him in opposing the petition. (Id., 139-145.) Moreover, Jeffrey, in his official capacity as an officer of the Company, defended this proceeding based on advice that Cullen allegedly gave to him not to call a meeting of the board. (Id., 56- 70.)3 In contrast, some of the lawsuits arguably did not involve a conflict. For example, it is undisputed that Cullen did not represent Jeffrey in an arbitration of a wrongful termination claim (Arbitration) that he filed after some or all of the Baugher plaintiffs gained control of the board and terminated him. (Rice Aff., 33.)"

Pope Inv. II LLC v Belmont Partners, LLC  2014 NY Slip Op 30349(U)  February 4, 2014  Sup Ct, New York County  Docket Number: 651479/12  Judge: Jeffrey K. Oing is the story of a huge investment, a huge loss, and the search for missing monies. 

"A Securities Purchase Agreement, dated April 14, 2008, documented the AAXT Investment (Compl.,18). The Investor plaintiffs, along with other investors not named as plaintiffs, invested approximately $12.5 million in AAXT in exchange for 4,008,188 shares of AAXT’s Series A Senior Convertible Preferred Stock (Id.). Of the $12.5 million, approximately $10,132,522.35 was left in net proceeds after fees were paid to Deheng and named defendants Guzov and Belmont (Compl., 24). In conjunction with the closing of the AAXT Investment, AAXT and SMT entered into the China Control Agreement (Compl., 23). SMT transferred all of the economic benefits and liabilities of
its business to Anhante in exchange for the net proceeds of the AAXT Investment, namely, $10,132,522.35 (Id.). Pursuant to the China Control Agreement, AAXT effectively became the  indirect beneficial owner of SMT (Id.).

After the AAXT Investment closed, Guzov placed the net proceeds, $10,132,522.35, in a Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited ("HSBC") account under ABM’s name for holding before they were transferred to SMT (Compl., 40, 45). Plaintiffs allege, however, that Shao and/or Kamick retained control of AMB and the bank account at issue, and that they were not aware that Shao and/or Kamick could exercise control over the net proceeds (Compl., 28). The complaint alleges that Shao embezzled most or all of the money in the ABM account within several days (Compl., 29)."

"The complaint also alleges that Shao and Lv had been  conspiring to embezzle the money invested in AAXT since 2007 (Compl., 31). On September 4, 2008, Lv, acting on Kamick’s behalf, e-mailed Meuse and Luckman, asking that they act as a bridge between Kamick and the AAXT Investors to avoid legal action (Compl., 33). On September 18, 2008, Lv informed the AAXT Investors that their investment had been invested elsewhere, contrary to the Transaction Documents and SEC filings (Compl., 34). After Deheng had advised Kamick to transfer the net
proceeds out of ABM’s account, Lv informed the AAXT investors in an e-mail dated October 9, 2008 that Deheng would no longer be representing Kamick (Compl., 35). According to the complaint,
after the net proceeds were removed from ABM’s account, the funds were deposited into Shao’s personal bank account, accounts of entities controlled by Shao, and an account controlled by Lv
(Compl., 37). "

The Group plaintiffs allege that Guzov and Ofsink committed legal malpractice by violating New York Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1. 7 (b) ( 4) . That Rule requires a lawyer who has decided to represent two clients, regardless of an apparent conflict of interest, obtain written consent from each affected client. The Group plaintiffs claim that defendants Guzov and
Of sink represented AAXT and Kamick for the SMT Transactions without their written consent.
In support of dismissal of this claim, defendants Guzov and Ofsink rely on William Kaufman Org., Ltd. v Graham & James LLP, 269 AD2d 171, 173 (1st Dept 2000) to argue that "a violation of a
disciplinary rule does not generate a cause of action." That reliance is misplaced. That case also stands for the proposition that "some of the conduct constituting a violation of a disciplinary rule may also constitute evidence of malpractice" (Id.). Nonetheless, a violation of a disciplinary rule, standing alone and without more, does not generate a cause of action (Schafrann v N.V. Famka, Inc., 14 AD3d 363, 364 [1st Dept 2003]) The issue, thus, is whether there is more than just a violation of the Rule. A review of the complaint demonstrates that it does not
sufficiently plead what negligent conduct defendants Guzov and Of sink allegedly perpetrated to support the legal malpractice claim. Specifically, the allegations of failure to vet Shao and
[* 16] "disclose information surrounding Shao, his management of Kamick, and his personal relationship with Lv are insufficient to substantiate claims of attorney malpractice without allegations that such a duty existed and that these omissions were the proximate cause of the Group plaintiffs’ damages."

"This broad and conclusory allegation, however, without more, is insufficient. Even if the Group plaintiffs were to contend that defendants were negligent by failing to conduct due diligence on
Shao and disclose information regarding his management of Kamick and his personal relationship with Lv, nowhere does the complaint allege that defendants had a duty to conduct such due diligence or disclose such information, and that this failure was the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ damages. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Group plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim (Count VI) is granted, and it is hereby dismissed without prejudice."

In a legal malpractice case worth more than $60 Million, is it possible that the testimony of a single witness at a deposition can make the essential difference? 

In Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP   2014 NY Slip Op 00954
Decided on February 13, 2014   Appellate Division, First Department   Richter, J. bear in mind that a major issue in the legal malpractice case is whether Defendant advised Plaintiff of the REMIC rules.  More than $60 million is at stake. Then read these paragraphs:
 

"Glick testified that she and Adelman had numerous discussions with Nomura’s securitization team about REMIC requirements. She submitted an affidavit stating that before the D5 Securitization closed, Cadwalader provided Nomura with "detailed advice" as to how to satisfy the 80% test. As part of that advice, Glick told Nomura to add together the value of what was plainly REMIC real property, such as land and structural improvements. If that sum amounted to at least 80% of the loan amount, the 80% test would be met. If not, Glick advised Nomura that it should make further inquiries to determine whether the loan met the 80% test. Adelman also advised Nomura that it should consult with Cadwalader if it had any questions about a particular loan.

Perry Gershon, a former vice president of Nomura who was in charge of the D5 [*6]Securitization, confirmed that Cadwalader properly advised Nomura of the REMIC rules. He testified that prior to the D5 Securitization, Cadwalader told him, and he understood, that a REMIC loan needed to be secured by real property worth at least 80% of the loan, that real property includes land and buildings, but not personal property, and that the appraisals of the collateral securing the mortgage loans in  the trust had to separately value the real property.

The testimony of Adelman, Glick and Gershon satisfied Cadwalader’s prima facie burden on summary judgment showing that the allegedly missing advice was in fact given to Nomura (see Stolmeier v Fields, 280 AD2d 342, 343 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 714 [2001] [rejecting failure to advise claim where the client’s own deposition testimony showed he was aware of the advice]). Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, we find nothing inconsistent in Gershon’s testimony. Gershon’s alleged inability to succinctly articulate the REMIC rules during his deposition, which took place more than 10 years after the advice was given, does not refute his unrebutted testimony that Cadwalader advised him of the relevant rules at the time of the D5 Securitization. Nor does the fact that Gershon is married to one of the Cadwalader attorneys who worked on the transaction, standing alone, raise an issue of fact. At his deposition, Gershon made clear that his wife’s employment at Cadwalader had no bearing on how he viewed the litigation. Nomura’s current argument to the contrary would only be based on speculation. In any event, even if we were to discount Gershon’s statements, the unchallenged testimony of Adelman and Glick shows that the proper REMIC advice was given.

Because Cadwalader met its prima facie burden on summary judgment, the burden shifted to Nomura "to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Nomura failed to satisfy that burden. It points to no documentary evidence directly refuting the testimony of Adelman, Glick and Gershon that the proper REMIC advice was given. Nor did any witness testify that Cadwalader specifically failed to advise Nomura that the appraisals for the D5 Securitization had to separately value the real property components of the asset in question.

Thus, the motion court should have granted summary judgment dismissing the advice claim. "
 

Yesterday, we started to discuss how fraud and legal malpractice can exist side by side and not be "duplicitive."  In Johnson v Rose  2014 NY Slip Op 30262(U)  January 23, 2014  Sup Ct, NY County 
Docket Number: 652075/2011  Judge: Lawrence K. Marks we saw how plaintiffs claimed both fraud and legal malpractice in the tax shelters they got involved with.

"Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ first cause of action as duplicative of the legal malpractice claim. It is well-settled that failure to disclose one’s own malpractice, standing alone, does not give rise to a fraud claim separate from the customary malpractice action. See, e.g., Weiss v. Manfredi, 83 N.Y.2d 974, 977 (1994); Baystone Equities, Inc. v. Handel-Harbour, 27 A.D.3d 231, 231 (1st Dep ‘t 2006); Roswick v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 22 A.D.3d 409, 410 (1st Dep’t 2005).  Thus, a fraud claim asserted in connection with a claim for legal malpractice "is sustainable only to the extent that it is premised upon one or more affirmative, intentional misrepresentations — that is, something more egregious than mere concealment or failure to disclose [one’s] own malpractice." White of Lake George v. Bell, 251 A.D.2d 777, 778 (3d Dep’t 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Carl v. Cohen, 55 A.D.3d 478, 478-79 (1st Dep’t 2008) (fraud claim may be dismissed as duplicative of a malpractice claim if it is ‘"not based on an allegation of independent, intentionally
tortious’ conduct" and "fail[s] to allege ‘separate and distinct’ damages")"

"The Second Department recently held that an allegation that defendants "committed fraud by misrepresenting that they ‘made a motion for a default judgment’ when they ‘never made, filed, or drafted’ such a motion, and that they billed the plaintiff for drafting the motion" was not duplicative or redundant of the allegation that defendants "committed legal malpractice in failing to timely pursue [the] default judgment." Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCabe & Mack, LLP, 105 A.D.3d 837, 839 (2d Dep’t 2013). The court noted that "[ w ]here, as here, tortious conduct independent of the alleged
malpractice is alleged, a motion to dismiss a cause of action as duplicative is properly denied." Id. at 840. Moreover, the apparent overlap in the amount of damages sought on both counts of action did not require dismissal. Id. at 838, 840.3 See also Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 451-52 (1978) (determining that fraud claim was distinct from malpractice claim where defendant,  knowing it to be untrue yet expecting his patient to rely on his advice, advised her that physiotherapy would produce a cure, in consequence of which fraudulent misrepresentation the patient was deprived of the opportunity for cure of the condition initially caused by the doctor’s alleged malpractice"). Particularly instructive is the First Department’s decision in Mitschele v. Schultz,
36 A.D.3d 249, 254 (1st Dep’t 2006). In that case, the plaintiff retained the accountant defendants to advise her regarding her tax status and tax liability as a United Statescitizen living and working abroad. The defendants advised plaintiff that her employer, whose president had introduced plaintiff to the defendants (one of whom was his cousin), should compensate plaintiff as an "outside contractor" and therefore withhold no taxes. When it was later revealed that this advice was erroneous and plaintiff incurred tax liabilities as a result, plaintiff sued, alleging a number of causes of action including accounting malpractice and fraud. Plaintiffs fraud cause of action alleged that defendants’ advice was made not in an effort to serve her interests but for the sole benefit of her employer, to allow it to avoid payroll and other taxes and costs. On these facts, the
First Department rejected the defendants’ contention that plaintiffs fraud claim was duplicative of her malpractice claim. As the court stated, "[D]efendants’ alleged fraud is not simply the failure to disclose the malpractice based upon accounting errors. Rather, defendants are alleged to have perpetrated a fraud on plaintiff from the time they were retained to provide accounting services, in failing to disclose their concern with protecting the interests of another entity, namely, plaintiffs employer." Id. at 254. "

Heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune decided that dividends and distributions were not sufficient, and entered into a tax shelter arrangement.  Naturally, it was disastrous, and ended in litigation.  In Johnson v Rose  2014 NY Slip Op 30262(U)  January 23, 2014  Sup Ct, NY County
Docket Number: 652075/2011  Judge: Lawrence K. Marks  we see how the Proskauer Rose LLP law firm engineered a big mess.  Today we will deal with the question of whether a fraud claim can exists side-by-side with a legal malpractice claim.

"Plaintiffs John Seward Johnson, Jr. ("Johnson") and his wife Joyce H. Johnson are Johnson & Johnson, Inc. stockholders who, along with other close affiliates and related entities, were clients of defendants at certain times relevant to the complaint. Through their attorney-client relationship with Johnson, defendants were aware of material aspects of plaintiffs’ financial affairs, including plaintiffs’ ownership of substantial amounts of Johnson & Johnson stock. Defendants approached Johnson (through Matthews) to offer him the opportunity to enter into a tax avoidance transaction with another Proskauer client, nonparty Diversified Group, Inc. ("Diversified"), which was in the business of selling tax planning strategies to high income parties. Defendants told Johnson that the transaction would allow plaintiffs to sell a large block of Johnson & Johnson stock in a manner that would minimize the payment of capital gains taxes. Johnson was realizing significant dividends on the stock up to that time, and had no plans to sell the stock before defendants approached him with the idea."

"Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ first cause of action as duplicative of the legal malpractice claim. It is well-settled that failure to disclose one’s own malpractice, standing alone, does not give rise to a fraud claim separate from the customary malpractice action. See, e.g., Weiss v. Manfredi, 83 N.Y.2d 974, 977 (1994); Baystone Equities, Inc. v. Handel-Harbour, 27 A.D.3d 231, 231 (1st Dep ‘t 2006); Roswick v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 22 A.D.3d 409, 410 (1st Dep’t 2005). Thus, a fraud claim asserted in connection with a claim for legal malpractice "is sustainable only to the extent that it is premised upon one or more affirmative, intentional misrepresentations — that is, something more egregious than mere concealment or failure to disclose [one’s] own malpractice." White of Lake George v. Bell, 251 A.D.2d 777, 778 (3d Dep’t 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Carl v. Cohen, 55 A.D.3d 478, 478-79 (1st Dep’t 2008) (fraud claim may be dismissed as duplicative of a malpractice claim if it is ‘"not based on an allegation of independent, intentionally
tortious’ conduct" and "fail[s] to allege ‘separate and distinct’ damages"); Atton v. Bier, 12 A.D.3d 240, 241-42 (1st Dep’t 2004) (suggesting that an alleged failure to disclose one’s own "general incompetence" is, in effect, "founded upon the same underlying allegations as the malpractice claim and seek essentially the same relief’). Mere allegations that defendants "furnished erroneous legal advice and neglected to take appropriate steps to safeguard [plaintiffs’] interests" do not suffice. White of Lake George, 251 A.D.2d at 778. However, not every claim for fraud is duplicative of a professional malpractice claim, even when both are asserted in the same action. For example, it is proper to deny a motion to dismiss a fraud claim as duplicative of a legal malpractice claim where "the fraud cause of action was based upon tortious conduct independent of the alleged malpractice, i.e., an alleged misrepresentation as to the eligibility of the defendant
[attorney] to practice law in the State of Florida, and the plaintiffs alleged that damages flowed from this conduct." Rupolo v. Fish, 87 A.D.3d 684, 685-86 (2d Dep’t 2011); see also Burke, Albright, Harter & Rzepka, LLP v. Sills, 83 A.D.3d 1413, 1414 (4th Dep’t 2011) (fraud counterclaim not duplicative of legal malpractice counterclaim where "[t]he proposed counterclaims are based on allegations that plaintiffs intended to deceive decedent, whereas the ‘legal malpractice  counterclaim] is based on negligent conduct"’); Dischiavi v. Calli, 68 A.D.3d 1691, 1693 (4th Dep’t 2009) (fraud claims not duplicative of legal malpractice claims where "plaintiffs have alleged that the fraud caused additional damages, separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice")"