Reading the beginning of this case immediately brought us back to a Conflicts class at law school, and that’s a very long time ago. We were to to analyze an auto accident in which plaintiff resided in state A and the accident took place in state B and the insurer was from state C…well you get the picture. Here in Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group, Inc. v Faber 2012 NY Slip Op 07880 Appellate Division, First Department a NY resident was injured in a MVA in Connecticut while employed by a NJ company who had NJ workers’ compensation.
 

"On September 14, 2000, defendant Donald Pressley, a New York City resident, was injured in a tractor-trailer accident in Connecticut during the course of his employment with nonparty Cobra Express Inc., which is located in New Jersey. Fremont Compensation Company (Fremont), the workers’ compensation carrier for Cobra Express, paid Pressley New Jersey workers’ compensation benefits, making the last payment to Pressley on May 9, 2002.

On or about September 19, 2000, Pressley retained nonparty Paul A. Shneyer, Esq., to bring a personal injury lawsuit for injuries he sustained in the accident. When Shneyer failed to timely commence an action, Pressley commenced a malpractice action against him. The Faber defendants represented Pressley in that action and settled the case against Shneyer in December 2008. On March 24, 2009, plaintiff, the administrator for Fremont (now in liquidation), commenced the instant action to enforce a lien against the settlement proceeds.

The Faber defendants maintain that under Matter of Shutter v Phillips Display Components Co. (90 NY2d 703 [1997]), New Jersey cases holding that workers’ compensation liens attach to legal malpractice recoveries (see Frazier v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 142 NJ 590, 667 A2d 670 [1995]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Maran & Maran, 142 NJ 609, 667 A2d 680 [1995]) do not apply in this case because the malpractice recovery did not duplicate the medical payments and lost wages Pressley received under workers’ compensation. This argument is unavailing. Pursuant to a June 2010 order from which the Faber defendants did not appeal, New Jersey law applies to the merits of plaintiff’s claims and thus, New York law regarding double recoveries is inapplicable. [*2]

Under New Jersey law, a double recovery "occurs when the employee keeps any workers’ compensation benefits that have been matched by recovery against the liable third person" (Frazier, 142 NJ at 602, 667 A2d at 676 [emphasis in original]), rendering irrelevant whether the settlement of the legal malpractice action included medical expenses and lost wages. We note, however, that even if New York law applied, the settlement did not specify what it was for and therefore, we cannot conclude that no part of it was for medical expenses and lost wages.

Defendants’ argument that the application of New Jersey law in this case violates New York public policy because Pressley is a New York resident fails because although defendants have shown that New York and New Jersey law differ on this issue, they have not satisfied the stringent test for rejecting New Jersey law as against New York public policy (see 19A NY Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws § 17).

Contrary to defendants’ argument, the instant action is not time-barred. As agreed to by the parties, New York’s three year statute of limitations is applicable. We agree with the motion court that plaintiff’s claim accrued when Pressley received the settlement payment from Shneyer (see Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175-176 [1986]). "
 

Husband suffers personal injury in a fall from a scaffold. He resolves the case for $1M. Even at that number, he and wife then succeed in a legal malpractice case for an additional $ 297,000. What happens then? Burnett v Burnett, 2012 NY Slip Op 08850  Appellate Division, Third Department tells the sad but familiar story of everything unraveling.
 

"The parties were married in 1974 and raised six grown children. During the course of the marriage, plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) worked within the home and defendant (hereinafter the husband) was the primary wage earner, excluding a period during the marriage — described by Supreme Court as "significant" in duration — when the husband left the wife and children dependant upon public assistance benefits and charity from her family. In 2002, in the course of his employment, the husband suffered personal injuries in a fall from a scaffold. In 2006, the parties settled their claims for personal injury and loss of consortium in the combined net sum of $1 million and deposited the funds into a joint investment account managed by their son, with the stated intention of drawing $4,000 monthly from the account for their household expenses and support. In 2007, they jointly obtained a settlement payment upon a legal malpractice action (arising from the underlying personal injury and consortium claims) in the sum of roughly $297,000. The husband deposited this check into his separate account. Thereafter, the husband engaged in extensive and habitual gambling, depleting the accounts. After learning of an adulterous affair in 2009, the wife withdrew the remaining balance of just under $140,000 from the joint investment account. The husband has never accounted for the funds from the malpractice settlement and Supreme Court found, based upon this failure and upon his "less than forthcoming testimony," that the possibility remained that he had secreted or transferred assets.

Supreme Court awarded the wife title to the marital residence, the remaining balance of [*2]the investment account, and the household furnishings and farm equipment. The husband received his checking account, plumbing business and equipment, and a motor boat and trailer. The husband appeals.

We reject the husband’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that the settlement funds were marital property. Although the governing statute provides that compensation for personal injury constitutes separate property (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]), here, Supreme Court noted the complete lack of any evidence upon which the funds might have been allocated as between the husband’s personal injury claim and the wife’s consortium claim, and the substantial evidence supporting the legal presumption that the parties wished to treat the proceeds as joint assets of the marriage (see Cameron v Cameron, 22 AD3d 911, 912 [2005]; Garner v Garner, 307 AD2d 510, 512 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003])."

We’ve asked in the past whether there is an institutional bias against legal malpractice cases. Self-regulation of industries ( the LIBOR, for example) often lacks any rigor. The legal world also, in a way, self regulates. It is after all, rules for attorneys, written by attorneys, administered and judged by attorneys. In Wiener v Epstein 2012 NY Slip Op 22277   Appellate Term, First Department we see the Appellate Term reversing Civil Court on a summary judgment dismissal. Was Civil Court too ready to decide the underlying "but for" issues?
 

"Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim is not ripe for summary dismissal, since the defendant law firm failed in its burden to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs would have prevailed to some extent in the underlying action but for defendant’s alleged malpractice (see Cruz v Durst Law Firm, 273 AD2d 120 [2000]), i.e., failing in the underlying action to identify and timely serve a notice of claim upon the Hudson River Park Trust ("Trust"), the record owner of the bicycle path on which the first-named plaintiff was injured.

Giving plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see Ortega v Everest Realty LLC, 84 AD3d 542, 545 [2011]), the record contains circumstantial evidence sufficient to permit a fact-finder to determine that the condition which allegedly caused the first-named plaintiff to fall from his bicycle – described as a six foot by three foot patch of a "glass bead-like material used in the painting of bike ways … to provide better visibility" – was created by a contractor retained by the Trust (see Schneider v King’s Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744-745 [1986]; Chimilio-Ramos v Banguera, 62 AD3d 538 [2009]; Carboy v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., Inc. 43 AD3d 261, 262-263 [2007]; Berner v 2061 A Bartow Food Corp., 279 AD2d 275 [2001]), for which the Trust may have been held vicariously liable, if properly sued in the underlying action, based upon its nondelegable duty as the owner of the public bicycle path (see Sarisohn v 341 Commack Rd., Inc., 89 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2011]; Hill v Fence Man, Inc., 78 AD3d 1002, 1004 [2010]; Correa v City of New York, 66 AD3d 573, 574-575 [2009]). Thus, the lack of prior notice to the Trust of the hazard was not dispositive of the Trust’s potential liability (see Jabbour v Finnegan’s Moving & Warehouse Corp., 299 AD2d 192 [2002]; Katz v City of [*2]New York, 231 AD2d 448 [1996]).

Defendant’s summary judgment evidence failed to conclusively establish that a contractor retained by the Trust did not cause or create the pathway condition that allegedly caused the first-named plaintiff’s injuries. The deposition testimony of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") employee (Patel) did not serve to absolve the Trust of potential liability, since Patel testified that "it is possible" that the Trust could have contracted for the repair or painting of the bike path without DOT’s knowledge.

The record so far developed raises triable issues as to whether plaintiffs would have prevailed in the underlying personal injury litigation "but for" defendant’s negligence (cf. Wo Yee Hing Realty Corp. v Stern, ___ AD3d ___, 2012 NY Slip Op 05792 [1st Dept 2012]). "
 

Defendants in this legal malpractice case argued that there was a missing party, and that the lack of privity between plaintiff and the defendant attorney was fatal.  They lost in Supreme Court, and on appeal, continued to lose.

Mr. San, LLC v Zucker & Kwestel, LLP   2013 NY Slip Op 08416   Decided on December 18, 2013  Appellate Division, Second Department  held that Justice Bucaria was correct when he denied defendant’s motion. 
 "Applying these principles, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the first cause of action, which sought to recover damages for legal malpractice. While the complaint does not allege an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it sets forth a claim which falls within "the narrow exception of fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances" under which a cause of action alleging attorney malpractice may be asserted absent a showing of privity (Ginsburg Dev. Cos., LLC v Carbone, 85 AD3d 1110, 1112 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Aranki v Goldman & Assoc., LLP, 34 AD3d 510, 511-512; Griffith v Medical Quadrangle, Inc., 5 AD3d 151, 152). Furthermore, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants does not conclusively establish a defense to this cause of action as a matter of law (see CPLR 3211[a][1]).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1001 to direct the plaintiffs to join BarCred Holdings Affiliates, LLC (hereinafter BarCred), as a party plaintiff. The defendants failed to demonstrate that BarCred needed to be joined in order to accord complete relief between the parties, or that BarCred would be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action absent its joinder (see CPLR 1001[a]; Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v Diamond Constr. & Maintenance, Inc., 84 AD3d 754, 755; Spector v Toys "R" Us, Inc., 12 AD3d 358, 359; O’Brien v Town of Huntington, 308 AD2d 479, 481). "

This is a convoluted case, which started as a products liability-fall from a ladder- case, morphed into a legal malpractice case, went to trial and was prematurely dismissed during plaintiff’s case, was reversed on appeal and now comes back on a preclusion motion. The problem in Burbige v Siben & Ferber 2012 NY Slip Op 32086(U)   Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 010334/07 Judge: Randy Sue Marber is that there is no ladder. In this case, no ladder, no proof that the ladder was defective. Whose fault is it?

"As to the order of preclusion, this Court begins with noting that, here, the Appellate Division has not only directed a new trial but has specifically set forth the evidentiary issue inadequately established at the original trial by the Plaintiff; to wit plaintiff() fail ( ed) to make an offer of proof that he would have been successful in the underlying products liability action by offering expert testimony that the ladder from which he fell was defective. Consequently, the issue becomes whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to now present evidence that it could have properly presented at the first trial, the expert affidavit necessary to establish his success in the underlying products liability action.

Based upon the papers presented for this Court’ s consideration, this Court finds that the Plaintiff s failure to disclose his expert was in fact willful and intentional. Indeed the Appellate Division found that the Plaintiff s offer of proof was inadequate and wholly insufficient due to the absence of an expert affidavit demonstrating the merits of the underlying products liability action. Perhaps more critical is the fact that counsel for the Plaintiff, in support of his cross-motion infra again states that "the case law and the circumstances do not war ant the plaintiff to obtain an expert" (Aff. In Supp. Of Cross- Motion 6). Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed entirely, even at this juncture in opposition
to the Defendants s instant motion, to proffer a reasonable excuse, under the circumstances
for his delay in furnishing name and affidavit of his expert (CPLR ~ 3101 (d) (I); Wartski v. C.W Post Campus of Long Is. Univ. 63 A.DJd 916 917 (2 Dept. 2009)). Moreover the Defendants wil clearly be prejudiced should this Court determination be to permit the Plaintiff to now submit the name and testimony of their expert. Although a new trial has been granted by the Appellate Division and further that the Appellate Division has specifically set forth the evidentiary issue inadequately
established at the original trial, the fact is that the Plaintiff has, nonetheless, failed to meet his burden, under CPLR ~ 3101 that would sufficiently oppose the Defendants’ entitlement to preclusion. In fact, the Plaintiff has even failed to establish his burden under 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) that would permit this Court to award post-note of issue discovery (cf Scanga Family Practice Assocs. of Rockland, P. c., 2006 WL 6822760 (Sup. Ct. Rockland 2006); Bierzynskiv. New York Central Railroad Co. 59 Misc. 2d 315 (Sup. Ct. Erie 1969) aff’ d29 2d 804 (1971) rearg. denied 30 N. 2d 790 (1972)).

Counsel for the Plaintiff bases his entire motion on a spoliation of the evidence argument; that is, counsel for the Plaintiff submits that allegedly for more than 16 years counsel for the Defendants, failed to inspect and preserve the defective ladder, failed to obtain expert reports with respect to the defectively manufactured ladder, and effectively destroyed the key physical evidence of the defective ladder prior to the commencement of the Plaintiff s legal malpractice action. Spoliation of evidence is a factual and legal question in this malpractice case involving an underlying products liability claim. Spoliation of evidence occurs where a litigant intentionally or negligently disposes of crucial items of evidence before his or her adversaries have any opportunity to inspect them (Kirkland v. New York City Housing Authority, 236 A. 2d 170 (1st Dept. 1997)).

The underlying action was one sounding in products liability. The Plaintiff claims herein that the product that was alleged to be defectively designed or manufactured the ladder, was negligently or intentionally lost or destroyed subsequent to his accident and before anyone had an opportunity to inspect it. Although the Plaintiff charges his former attorneys in the underlying action, the Defendants herein, with spoliation of evidence, the Plaintiff makes no attempts to show that the ladder in question was ever in the possession of the Defendants or that it existed or was available when they were retained. "
 

The question of how a competent and qualified attorney would handle a case is the crux of Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C. 2012 NY Slip Op 06908    Appellate Division, Second Department . At issue is whether attorney committed malpractice in the termination of a real estate contract of sale.

"The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants’ legal malpractice. The amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff retained the defendants to represent and advise him in connection with the sale of certain real property. The plaintiff entered into a contract of sale with a buyer, who tendered a deposit to be held in escrow. The amended complaint further alleged that, prior to the closing date, the buyer’s attorney attempted to terminate the contract of sale because the buyer was unable to obtain financing for the purchase. The defendant Joseph A. Ingrao informed the plaintiff that the buyer wished to cancel the contract of sale, and the plaintiff agreed to cancel the contract and return the deposit.

The amended complaint stated that Ingrao sent the buyer’s attorney a letter "purporting to terminate" the contract of sale and returning the deposit. More than seven months later, however, the buyer attempted to revive the contract of sale and purchase the property under its terms. The plaintiff refused, maintaining that the contract had been terminated. The buyer subsequently commenced an action against the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale and filed a notice of pendency. In that action, the plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the contract of sale, had been terminated when the deposit was returned. The plaintiff also commenced a holdover proceeding. The plaintiff ultimately prevailed in the specific performance action.

The amended complaint asserted that the defendants committed malpractice by failing to "obtain a clear and unambiguous termination of the [contract of sale] after [the buyer’s] attorneys advised Ingrao that she wished to terminate the [contract of sale]." The amended complaint listed various things that the plaintiff claimed the defendants "should have done" in order to accomplish [*2]a "clear and unambiguous" termination of the contract of sale. "

"The standard to which the defendant’s conduct is to be compared is not that of the most highly skilled attorney, nor is it that of the average member of the legal profession, but that of an attorney who is competent and qualified (see Restatement [Second] of Torts: Negligence § 299A, Comment e). The conduct of legal matters routinely "involve[ ] questions of judgment and discretion as to which even the most distinguished members of the profession may differ" (Byrnes v Palmer, 18 App Div 1, 4, affd 160 NY 699). Absent an express agreement, an attorney is not a guarantor of a particular result (see Byrnes v Palmer, 18 App Div at 4; see also 1B NY PJI3d 2:152, at 140-141 [2012]), and may not be held "liable in negligence for . . . the exercise of appropriate judgment that leads to an unsuccessful result" (Rubinberg v Walker, 252 AD2d 466, 467; see Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645, 646; see also PJI 2:152).

It follows that "[the] selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice" (Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738; see Dimond v Kazmierczuk & McGrath, 15 AD3d 526, 527). Attorneys are free to act in a manner that is "reasonable and consistent with the law as it existed at the time of representation," without exposing themselves to liability for malpractice (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315; see Noone v Stieglitz, 59 AD3d 505, 507; Iocovello v Weingrad & Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208, 208). "

"In conclusion, as the plaintiff effectively concedes, he is estopped from denying that the defendants effected a legally valid termination of the contract of sale. To the extent that the allegations in the amended complaint are not barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, they fail to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was properly granted and the plaintiff’s cross motion was properly denied as academic."
 

There is nothing new in the case of Jack Hall Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v Duffy 2012 NY Slip Op 07249   Appellate Division, Third Department , merely a restatement of the long-standing and settled rule that expert opinion is required to show that there was / was not a departure from good and accepted practice. Supreme Court got it wrong, and the Third Department corrected Supreme Court, not once but twice.
 

"Soon after entering into the agreement, the relationship between the Halls and Scudder [*2]deteriorated to the point that Hall became concerned that he and his sons were in danger of losing the business due to Scudder’s mismanagement. Accordingly, Hall sought legal advice from defendant H. Wayne Judge concerning how to terminate Scudder in compliance with the employment agreement and in view of the urgency caused by the perceived danger to the business. After their meeting, Judge drafted a letter for Hall to give to Scudder. The letter outlined the reasons for Scudder’s termination and informed him that it was effective immediately. Hall and his sons then unanimously voted to terminate Scudder without giving Scudder notice and an opportunity to respond, after which Hall gave Scudder the letter drafted by Judge. Scudder responded by commencing an action against plaintiff for breach of the employment agreement. Although plaintiff, represented by Judge, prevailed at the trial of that action, we reversed and found that plaintiff failed to comply with the unambiguous terms of the employment agreement by terminating Scudder without any notice or opportunity to respond (Scudder v Jack Hall Plumbing & Heating, 302 AD2d 848 [2003]). Plaintiff then commenced this action alleging that defendants committed legal malpractice by negligently advising plaintiff in connection with Scudder’s termination. After joinder of issue and discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Finding that plaintiff’s opposing papers were inadequate to raise an issue of fact, Supreme Court granted the motion.

Plaintiff contends on appeal that defendants failed to meet their initial burden of presenting evidence in admissible form establishing that they had exercised the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession in discharging their obligations to plaintiff (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Geraci v Munnelly, 85 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2011]; Adamski v Lama, 56 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2008]). This issue of the adequacy of the professional services provided here requires a professional or expert opinion to define the standard of professional care and skill owed to plaintiff and to establish whether the attorney’s conduct complied with that standard (see Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d 606, 610 [2004]; Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003]; Greene v Payne, Wood & Littlejohn, 197 AD2d 664, 666 [1993]). Plaintiff argues that the affirmation by Judge submitted in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment fails to establish his prima facie compliance with the standard of care. We must agree.

According to Judge, based on his reading of the contract and plaintiff’s bylaws, he formed a legal opinion that the employment agreement was ambiguous and that immediate termination was consistent with its terms. Judge was motivated, however, by Hall’s desire for urgency and his own view that engaging in the termination process provided for by the agreement would damage plaintiff’s business. While Judge offers his legal conclusion and the business-related motivation behind it, his affirmation is insufficient to establish compliance with the applicable standard of care because he neither defines that standard nor explains that a reasonable attorney would reach the same conclusion that he did on the facts as they were presented to him. In short, Judge’s explanation of the urgency of the business factors that he considered in formulating the advice that he gave fails to establish that his legal advice was within the standard of care.

Further, Judge’s reliance on the fact that he initially prevailed at trial as proof that his interpretation of the employment agreement was reasonable is also misplaced as that order was reversed by this Court on the law (Scudder v Jack Hall Plumbing & Heating, 302 AD2d at 851). Accordingly, the argument that any error was one of judgment in selecting between reasonable alternatives must fail in light of the lack of a prima facie showing that the legal advice provided was a reasonable course of action. Inasmuch as defendants failed to shift the burden to plaintiff [*3]to demonstrate a departure from the standard of care, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Suppiah v Kalish, 76 AD3d 829, 832 [2010]; Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d at 927; Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282, 284 [1999]). "
 

We have mused on the eagerness with which Courts sometimes exhibit in granting early dismissal of legal malpractice cases, sometimes prematurely grappling with the "but for" portion of the case well before a good record is developed.  In Carter Ledyard & Millburn LLP v Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC  2013 NY Slip Op 33081(U)  December 5, 2013  Sup Ct, New York County  Docket Number: 155872/2013  Judge: Eileen A. Rakower we see a reasoned approach to the motion practice.  The Court notes that there are questions of fact on whether the client objected to attorney’s bills, and decides that the affirmative defenses are well pleaded.  From the decision:

"Kennedy avers that in August 2008, pursuant to a written letter of engagement, Pearl Seas retained Plaintiff as legal counsel in connection with a pending arbitration arising out of a contract for the construction of a passenger vessel, Plaintiff continued to represent Pearl Seas through October 7, 2011, Plaintiff continued to send invoices to Pearl Seas for its services, Pearl Seas
admitted receiving and retaining invoices from Plaintiff and made partial payments. In opposition, Defendant submits the affidavit of Charles A. Robertson, which avers that Pearl Seas repeatedly complained about Kennedy’s performance, objected to the firm’s invoices, and terminated the firm due to Kennedy’s performance. Furthermore, Defendant contends that discovery is needed from
Plaintiff, including documents and testimony from Kennedy and his associate, Christopher Rizzo, regarding Defendant’s complaints about Kennedy’s performance and objection to Plaintiffs invoices."

In light of issues of fact concerning whether Defendant objected to the invoices and Plaintiff’s performance and Defendant’s outstanding First Notice for Discovery and Inspection and Notice to Take Deposition, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied."

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a)(l) "the court may grant dismissal when documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." (Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]) (internal citations omitted) "When evidentiary material is considered, the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one." (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d
268, 2 7 5 [ 1977]) (emphasis added). A movant is entitled to dismissal under CPLR §3211 when his or her evidentiary submissions flatly contradict the legal conclusions and factual allegations of the complaint. (Rivietz v. Wolohojian, 3 8 A.D.3d 301 [1st Dept. 2007]) (citation omitted). Pearl Seas sets forth the following "facts common to all counterclaims:"

13. Mr. Kennedy advised Pearl Seas that the company would prevail in its dispute with Irving Shipbuilding. He repeatedly gave assurances of success to Pearl Seas, all of which failed, as described below, because of his poor performance and legal malpractice.
14. However, Mr. Kennedy’s performance was in sharp contrast to his assurances. In fact, Mr. Kennedy’s and Counterclaim Defendants’ performance as counsel for Pearl Seas fell far below the standard of care required of attorneys.
15. Specifically, and among other failings, Mr. Kennedy was routinely unprepared for appearances before the arbitration panel and in federal court.

16. Mr. Kennedy also failed to adequately understand critical legal issues, including the law relating to the issuance and timing of classification certificates. 17. Mr. Kennedy’s cross-examinations of key witnesses at the arbitration hearing were poor. They were unfocused, poorly conceived, and poorly executed. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy’s cross-examinations were so poor that
Pearl Seas forced him to allow his junior associate to examine a key witness. 18. Mr. Kennedy’s arguments to the arbitration panel were equally poor. He failed to make obvious arguments, and was extremely combative with the panel. 19. Mr. Kennedy also botched a key witness interview with a potentially critical witness, James Shephard, which further compromised Pearl Seas’ case.
20. From Pearl Seas’ perspective, Mr. Kennedy’s poor performance in the arbitration had caused the arbitration panel to tum against it, notwithstanding his repeated assurances of success. Indeed, Pearl Seas expected to do far better than they ultimately did in the arbitration, which
was a direct result of Counterclaim Defendants’ malpractice. 21. Mr. Kennedy also exhibited strange and unprofessional behavior outside of the arbitration. He was unwilling to take advice from anyone else, and did not work well with the term that Pearl Seas had put in place. He was unfocused and scatterbrained. He would frequently cut critical meetings short in order to get home to watch a television program that he said he was "addicted to."
22. Fearful that it was going to lose what was a winnable case, on or about October 7, 2011, Pearl Seas terminated Mr. Kennedy and his firm’s representation of the company. Pearl Seas was forced to retain another law firm, which only added to the expenses related to the arbitration, but which
did turn the case around immediately and produced an acceptable result. 23. In total, Pearl Seas paid Counterclaim Defendant more than $2.2 million for its services, which had no value. That does not include the amounts that Counterclaim Defendant claim are due in this lawsuit.
24. Pearl Seas repeatedly made clear that it was unhappy with Mr. Kennedy’s performance, and that it disputed the amounts billed to it."

"Accepting all allegations as true, Defendant has stated a counterclaim for legal malpractice and Plaintiffs proffered evidentiary submissions do not flatly contradict the legal conclusions and factual allegations of this counterclaim."