There are three (or perhaps four) elements of legal malpractice.  They are a departure from good and accepted practice, which proximately causes damage to plaintiff, "but for" which there would have been a better or different result, with ascertainable damages.  in Cobble Cr. Consulting, Inc. v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP ;  2013 NY Slip Op 06820;  Decided on October 22, 2013 ; Appellate Division, First Department we see a decision which affirms dismissal on the basis that plaintiff cannot show how any negligence was the proximate cause of their damage. 
 

"The motion court properly dismissed the claim of legal malpractice, as plaintiffs failed to allege how any negligence was the proximate cause of their damages (see O’Callaghan v Brunelle, 84 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 804 [2012]; McLoughlin v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 18 AD3d 245, 246 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 709 [2005]). The motion court considered plaintiffs’ allegations, quoted in its decision, that defendant acted in a manner contrary to its discussions with plaintiffs by assisting the subject corporation in eliminating the Preferred A shares. As the motion court noted, plaintiffs alleged only that the parties had discussed, and defendant failed to include, a provision in the Certificate of Designation that prevented changes in the common stock structure from affecting the conversion rate of plaintiffs’ Preferred A Stock. Plaintiffs did not challenge the inclusion of language in the Certificate of Designation that allows changes in the value or voting rights of Preferred A shares by a majority vote of Preferred A shareholders. The complaint reveals that a vote held pursuant to this latter provision is what altered the conversion ratio, allegedly rendering plaintiffs’ stock virtually worthless. Thus, inclusion of the anti-dilution provision plaintiffs cite would not have altered the result. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to set forth facts showing that, but for defendant’s conduct, plaintiffs would not have incurred any damages.

Plaintiffs further alleged, without elaborating, that defendant failed to advise them to seek independent counsel at any time. Plaintiffs failed to allege how this omission proximately caused their injuries. Any claim that independent counsel could have negotiated a provision prohibiting changes to the Certificate or any changes to the conversion ratio, even upon a majority vote, or could have insulated plaintiffs from incurring any losses upon a conversion, is speculative."

Legal malpractice in the criminal defense sphere does not, for the most part, exist.  Under well settled Court of Appeals cases a criminal defendant may not successfully sue the criminal defense attorney for legal malpractice absent "actual innocence", which is generally defined as acquittal, reversal or exoneration.  Britt v. Legal Aid Socy, 95 NY2d 443 (2000) ; Carmel v. Lunney, 70 NY2d 169 (1987).  Here is case where plaintiff might make an appropriate showing.

InPeople v Clermont;  2013 NY Slip Op 06806;   Decided on October 22, 2013;  Court of Appeals  we see a case which might be one of the rare possible candidates, if the gun is suppressed on remand.
 

"Defendant was charged with weapon possession offenses after he was found in possession of a gun as a consequence of a street encounter with the police. Three days before the suppression hearing, his assigned counsel made an application to be relieved as counsel, stating that his associate had quit, he was overwhelmed with work and could not competently represent defendant. Counsel restated these concerns on the record before the hearing commenced and the court stated that the motion would be granted after counsel completed the hearing. Thereafter, the hearing ensued, the court denied suppression, new counsel was appointed and the case proceeded to trial where defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees.

On appeal, defendant sought reversal of his conviction based on the ineffective assistance of his first attorney. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment in a divided decision. The majority concluded that counsel’s representation had not fallen below the constitutional standard but the dissent disagreed, reasoning that multiple errors by the attorney in relation to defendant’s suppression application warranted remittal of the case to Supreme Court. The Appellate Division dissenter granted defendant leave to appeal to this Court.

We agree with the dissent that defendant is entitled to relief. In his written motion requesting a hearing, counsel misstated the facts relating to the arrest, indicating that defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle stop rather than a street encounter with police. At the suppression hearing, the attorney did not marshal the facts for the court and made no legal argument. This, coupled with his failure to make appropriate argument in his motion papers or to submit a post-hearing memorandum, meant that the defense never supplied the hearing court with any legal rationale for granting suppression. Moreover, after the court issued a decision describing the sequence of events in a manner that differed significantly from the testimony of the police officer (the only witness at the hearing) and was adverse to the defense, defendant’s attorney made no motion to reargue or otherwise correct the court’s apparent factual error. Counsel never ascertained whether the court decided the motion based on the hearing proof or a misunderstanding of the officer’s uncontradicted testimony.

And this is not a case where any of these errors can be explained as part of a strategic design (assuming one could be imagined), given that defense counsel asked to be relieved, informing the court that he was unable to provide competent representation to defendant. Thus, although the attorney secured a hearing, his representation in relation to the application as a whole was deficient in so many respects — both before, during and after the proceeding — that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation at a critical stage of this [*3]prosecution. "

From the Rivera Dissent:

"Defendant was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon. Prior to defendant’s trial, counsel moved as part of an omnibus motion to suppress the weapon, a gun seized shortly after defendant’s arrest. However, in that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion that sought suppression of physical evidence, counsel recited a wholly different factual scenario from the events actually leading up to defendant’s arrest and the seizure of the gun. Counsel incorrectly stated that police officers approached defendant while he was seated in an automobile, and that after they forcibly removed him from the vehicle, a gun fell out onto the ground. This was a complete fiction. The correct facts were that the officers had observed defendant walking on the street, arrested him after a chase on foot, and seized the gun from a [*4]private yard near where he was arrested. Additionally, because counsel’s legal argument was based on these incorrect facts, he also failed to tailor the legal standards to the specifics of defendant’s case. Although counsel’s motion papers stated that he was "unaware of many of the relevant facts necessary to [his] preparation of the defense," and requested permission to submit a post-hearing memorandum, "so that [he] might more effectively represent the interests of [defendant]," he never filed such memorandum.

In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed" (People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1993]). Reasonable suspicion encompasses a "quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand" (People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 448 [1992][citation omitted]). We have found that "[f]light, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit" (Holmes, 81 NY2d at 1058). "Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit" (id.[citations omitted]).

Nearly two decades ago, in a case on all fours with the present appeal, we held that flight in combination with a defendant grabbing at his waistband, "does not support a determination that the officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant" (see People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 930 [1994]). In Sierra, we found no reasonable suspicion to pursue a fleeing defendant where "the officers knew only that, after exiting from the back seat of a livery cab that had been stopped for defective brake lights, defendant grabbed at his waistband" (id. [emphasis added]).

Years later, we reiterated that flight must be accompanied by other suggestive conduct in order to support reasonable suspicion justifying a seizure (People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525,526 [2002][citing Martinez, 80 NY2d at 447-48]). In Martinez, we acknowledged that the "[d]efendant had a right to refuse to respond to a police inquiry and his flight when officers approached could not, in and of itself, create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" (id. at 448 [citation omitted]). Only after aggregating other compelling circumstances—namely that defendant was observed "removing an instrument known to the police to be used in concealing drugs"—did we find reasonable suspicion (id.) "

Mr. San LLC v Zucker & Kwestel LLP ; 2012 NY Slip Op 32119(U);  Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 601065/11;  Judge: Stephen A. Bucaria is an interesting example of the "whose lawyer is it" question that frequently arises in the formation of new businesses.

"This is an action for aiding and abetting fraud. Plaintiffs invested substantial amounts of money with Gershon Barkany who held himself out as a financial advisor and real estate investor. Plaintiffs allege that Barkany represented that the money was to be used to fund real estate loans and other investments but Barkany was actually running a Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs further allege that Barkany presented defendants Zucker & K westel LLP and Steven K westel as his attorneys in connection with the sham real estate transactions, and the firm accepted wire transfers of plaintiffs ‘ funds into its escrow account."

"Absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts, or other special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, for harm caused by professional negligence, unless there is a relationship sufficiently approaching privity between the attorney and the alleged client Schneider v Finman 15 NY3d 306 309 (2010)). This rule protects attorneys from legal malpractice suits by indeterminate classes of plaintiffs whose interests may be at odds with the interests of the acknowledged client (Id). Since an attorney-client relationship does not depend upon a formal retainer agreement or upon payment of a fee, the court must look to the words and actions of the parties (Moran v Hurst 32 AD3d 909, 911 (2d Dept 2006)). The unilateral belief of a plaintiff alone does not confer upon him or her the status of a client (Id). Plaintiffs allege that Barkany presented defendants as his attorneys, rather than the attorneys for the plaintiffs. An attorney for an organization is not the attorney for its members (Professional Conduct Rule 1. 13). However, it appears that no company had been formed at the time that plaintiffs made their investment. At the time that plaintiffs invested
their funds, their interests seemed aligned with Barkany , at least as to the expected profitability of the venture. Moreover, the fact that Kwestel borrowed money from Barkany suggests that there may have been collusion between client and attorney and perhaps even knowledge on Kwestel’ s part as to Barkany s fraud upon the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the court must give plaintiffs the benefit of the possible favorable inference that an attorney-client relationship arose when defendants accepted plaintiffs ‘ money into their escrow account. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs ‘ malpractice claim for a defense founded upon documentary evidence and failure to state a cause of action is denied. Fiduciary liability is not dependent solely upon an agreement, but results when one of the parties is under a duty to act for or give advice for the benefit of the other upon matters within the scope of the relationship EBC I, Inc v Goldman Sachs 5 NY3d 11 , 19-
(2005)). An attorney for a limited liability company may have a fiduciary duty towards an individual member, at least with respect the member s share of distributions of the company’s profits Kurtzman v Burgol 40 AD3d 588 (2d Dept 2007)). As noted, it appears that no company had been formed at the time that plaintiffs made their investment. Nevertheless, having accepted plaintiffs ‘ money into escrow , defendants may have had a fiduciary duty to make sure that the funds were applied to the real estate investment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs ‘ breach of fiduciary duty claim for a founded upon documentary evidence and failure to state a cause of action is denied."
 

We saw Margin Call.       Dexia SA/NV v Morgan Stanley  013 NY Slip Op 51696(U); Decided on October 16, 2013; Supreme Court, New York County; Bransten, J. is the litigation that might have followed the events in Margin Call.

Admittedly there is no legal malpractice claim in Dexia.  We wonder what will happen now that the Court has determined that the assignment of certificates in this mega multi-million dollar transaction laced the right to sue for fraud. 

"n this action for common-law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and fraudulent inducement, defendants Morgan Stanley ("MS"), Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. ("MS & Co."), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. ("MSAC"), Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. ("MSC"), Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. ("MSMC"), and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC bring the instant motion to dismiss the amended complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211. Defendants contend that plaintiffs lack standing to bring fraud claims and that plaintiffs have not pled the requisite elements to state a cause of action sounding in fraud. Plaintiffs FSA Asset Management LLC ("FSAM"), Dexia SA/NV, Dexia Holdings, Inc. ("DHI"), and Dexia Crédit Local SA ("DCL") oppose the motion.

[*2]I.Background

This action concerns 29 residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"), which FSAM purchased from MS & Co in 2006 and 2007, for a total of $626 million. On June 30, 2009, FSAM assigned the securities to Dexia SA/NV, DHI, and DCL for face value, via a put option transaction. By the time this instant action was filed, all 29 RMBS at issue had been downgraded to "junk" status.

Investors in RMBS receive payments from the cash flow generated by thousands of mortgages, which have been deposited into designated pools. The actual securities held by the investor are pass-through participation certificates, which are an ownership interest in the issuing trust, the entity that holds the pools.

The first step in the securitization process is the creation of a pool of designated mortgages by the sponsor. The mortgages can be originated by the sponsor itself, purchased from other financial institutions, or be a mixture of self-originated and purchased loans. Before creating the pool, the sponsor reviews a sample of the mortgages in order to verify that they comport with underwriting guidelines.

After the pool of designated mortgages has been created by the sponsor, the mortgages are transferred to the depositor. The depositor carves up the projected cash flow from the mortgages into tranches; the tranches are ordered by seniority on the basis of risk, thus, any losses in the loan pool are applied to the junior (riskiest) tranches first. Once the tranche structure has been finalized, the proposed security is sent to rating agencies for evaluation. Next, the depositor transfers the mortgage pool to the issuing trust, which issues participation certificates for each tranche. The issuing trust then conveys the participation certificates to the depositor as consideration for the mortgages.

Once the depositor is in possession of the participation certificates, the underwriter will begin marketing the RMBS to potential investors, providing them with free writing prospectuses and term sheets. The depositor then transfers the certificates to the underwriter, who will sell them to investors and remit the proceeds to the depositor, minus underwriting fees.

In this action, MS & Co. underwrote and sold all the RMBS in dispute, MSMC was the sponsor of 15 of the 21 securitizations, MSAC served as depositor for 17 of the securitizations, and MSC served as depositor for three of the securitizations.

Plaintiffs allege they were fraudulently induced into purchasing the RMBS by defendants. Specifically, plaintiffs allege defendants misrepresented the due diligence and underwriting standards on the underlying mortgages, misrepresented the loan to value ("LTV") ratios of the mortgaged properties, and misrepresented the debt to income ("DTI") ratios of the borrowers. Plaintiffs further contend that defendants misrepresented the risks associated with the RMBS in general, and made misrepresentations to rating agencies, resulting in artificially high ratings. Plaintiffs assert that in reliance on defendants’ misrepresentations, they were damaged by paying far more for the RMBS than they were worth. Plaintiffs pray for compensatory, rescissory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses incurred in this action. "

"Furthermore, plaintiffs’ own pleadings contradict their assertion that FSAM intended to assign fraud claims, in that they allege that "[t]he Dexia Plaintiffs could not have uncovered Morgan Stanley’s fraud until 2011, at the earliest, regardless of the amount of due diligence that they performed." (Am. Compl. ¶ 259.) It is unclear how FSAM could have intended to convey fraud claims of which it was not aware, and were not discoverable for a year and a half after the assignment. "It is manifest that the plaintiff did not intend to assign the cause of action . . . because neither at the time of the assignment, nor of the execution of the conveyance, had the plaintiff discovered the fraud." Fox, 157App. Div. at 368. If FSAM had intended to assign fraud claims which they had not yet discovered, it could have included express language to that effect.

The court concludes that FSAM did not assign fraud claims to assignee-plaintiffs Dexia SA/NV, DHI and DCL; to the extent any fraud claims exist, they remain with FSAM alone. "

"In an action for fraud, "[t]he true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the out-of-pocket’ rule." Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not to compensate them for what they might have gained." Id. FSAM sustained no losses on the RMBS it purchased; it received exactly the purchase price upon the sale to the Dexia plaintiffs. There is also no allegation that pass-through payments due to FSAM as holders of the participation certificates were missed. To the extent FSAM did receive pass through payments, the RMBS were profitable to them, and there can be no claim of damages. See Jung Hing Leung v. Lotus Ride, 198 AD2d 155, 156 (1st Dep’t 1993).

Even if the court is to accept as true that there have been material misrepresentations, scienter, and justifiable reliance by FSAM, without damages, the claims must be dismissed. [*6]Deception without damages is not actionable, nor is deception, in and of itself, a legally cognizable injury. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 56-57 (1999). "

While one might expect that this article is about a statute of limitations question, it is about both moving too fast and waiting too long in a motion for summary judgment.  Imagine the tensions that exist for defense counsel in legal malpractice litigation.  They want the case to end, yet, must amass enough evidence to support a motion.  They want to save legal fees in the defense, yet must spend money to win.  Beyond that, there is a one-summary judgment rule.  You may not move over and over for summary judgment.  What is one to do?

Vinar v Litman 2013 NY Slip Op 06675  Decided on October 16, 2013  Appellate Division, Second Department  is an example of moving too fast (prior to Plaintiff’s deposition) and waiting too long (the one motion rule.)
 

"The plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice, fraud, and conversion. The defendants Honig, Mongioi, Monahan and Sklavos LLP, Edward H. Honig, Robert Anthony Monahan, Mary E. Mongioi, Alexander E. Sklavos, Monahan & Sklavos, P.C., and Alexander E. Sklavos, P.C. (hereinafter collectively the attorney defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court concluded that their motion for summary judgment constituted their second motion for that relief, and denied it on the ground that they failed to identify the specific new evidence or sufficient cause that would justify the making of a successive summary judgment motion. On appeal, the attorney defendants contend, inter alia, that the court erred in denying their motion since their second summary judgment motion was premised on new evidence that was unavailable at the time of their initial motion.

"Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause" (Sutter v Wakefern Food Corp., 69 AD3d 844, 845; see Coccia v Liotti, 101 AD3d 664, 666; Powell v Trans-Auto Sys., 32 AD2d 650; Levitz v Robbins Music Corp., 17 AD2d 801). Although, in this context, newly discovered evidence may consist of "deposition testimony which was not elicited until after the date of a prior order denying an earlier motion for summary judgment" (Auffermann v Distl, 56 AD3d 502, 502; see Coccia v Liotti, 101 AD3d at 666; Alaimo v Mongelli, 93 AD3d 742, 743; Staib v City of New York, 289 AD2d 560), such evidence is not "newly discovered" simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion (Sutter v Wakefern Food Corp., 69 AD3d at 845). Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used [*2]to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means (see Pavlovich v Zimmet, 50 AD3d 1364, 1365; Capuano v Platzner Intl. Group, 5 AD3d 620, 621; Rose v La Joux, 93 AD2d 817, 818; Graney Dev. Corp. v Taksen, 62 AD2d 1148, 1149; Harding v Buchele, 59 AD2d 754, 755; Abramoff v Federal Ins. Co., 48 AD2d 676; Powell v Trans-Auto Sys., 32 AD2d 650). Indeed, "successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment" (Capuano v Platzner Intl. Group, 5 AD3d at 621; see Harding v Buchele, 59 AD2d at 755).

Here, contrary to the contention of the attorney defendants, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Although the plaintiff’s deposition was elicited after the prior summary judgment motion was denied, the purported new facts established by the plaintiff’s deposition testimony could have been asserted by the attorney defendants in support of their previous motion. The purported new facts pertained to matters about which the individual attorney defendants had personal knowledge, and could have been established through alternative evidentiary means…"
 

While not exactly legal malpractice-centric, the question of how plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys prepare for a medical malpractice case does touch on whether either is departing from good and accepted practice of law. 

The dispute is easily set forth.  Under Arons v. Jutkowitz,  9 NY3d 393 (2007), Defense counsel were permitted private interviews with treating physicians.  Plaintiffs were required to provide HIPPA authorizations permitting the interviews.

In Charlap v Khan  2013 NY Slip Op 23349   Decided on October 11, 2013  Supreme Court, Erie County  Curran, J. plaintiff’s attorney wrote to the doctors in an attempt to mitigate the effects of a private conversation between defense counsel and the physician.  Plaintiff’s attorney wrote: "I am writing to you regarding a lawsuit that has been commenced on behalf of my late wife, Lisa Charlap, which is listed above. The attorneys for the defendants in this lawsuit have indicated that they intend to contact you, and will attempt to meet with you to discuss the medical treatment you have provided, and perhaps other issues that relate to this lawsuit.
Although I am required to provide these defense lawyers with a written authorization permitting them to contact you, the law does not obligate you in any way to meet with them or talk with them. That decision is entirely yours. If you decide to meet with their lawyers, I would ask that you let me know, because I would like the opportunity to be present or to have my attorneys present."

is this permissible?  Is it a departure from good practice for a plaintiff’s attorney not to send such a letter? 

Supreme Court, in this case, held: "Arons did not establish a common law right to conduct a private interview of a non-party witness. To insist that plaintiff’s counsel not request of a witness to be present at defense counsel’s interview is to assert that a plaintiff has a duty to forbear from doing so. Arons did not impose any such duty. Further, any insistence that plaintiff’s counsel has such a duty is the equivalent of demanding that plaintiff’s counsel forebear from representing his or her client with "competence" (Rule 1.1) and "diligence" (Rule 1.3), as required by the Rules. The assertion of one person’s legal right in a court of law should be understood in the adversarial process as ordinarily limiting the rights of the adverse party or imposing a duty thereon. Arons did no such thing in merely indicating that an attorney "may" conduct interviews.

For these reasons, this Court concludes that Arons did not create a "right" to conduct private interviews of non-party witnesses.[FN6] The absence of such a "right" does not, however, mean that the process of non-party witnesses being interviewed by attorneys is without boundaries."

"The Court concludes that the letter which is the subject of this motion does not cross the boundaries set by the Rules. The letter does not advise the witness to do anything [*13]improper under the Rules. It does not even express a preference that the witness not meet with the adversary, which in any event would be permissible under Op. 2009-5. Rather, at most, it is a request to be present during an interview, a request which may or may not be honored by the witness. For these reasons, the Court denies the motions but declines to opine at this time as to whether the letter may be used for credibility purposes during cross examination of the plaintiff (see e.g. David B. Harrison, Annotation, Admissibility and Effect, on Issue of Party’s Credibility or Merits of His Case, of Evidence of Attempts to Intimidate or Influence Witness in Civil Action, 4 ALR 4th 829). "

A shockingly large number of educational institutions in New York and all over the country are now facing their history of teacher-student sexual abuse.  Horace Mann, Brown & Nichols, Poly Prep.  Each have had their past investigated, and in many instances come up short. 

What of the law firms that represented these schools?  Are they responsible for wrongful acts, especially in the nature of deceit?  If they forcefully defended the schools, can they now be held to have violated Judiciary Law 487?

In Zimmerman v. O’Melveny & Myers, LLP we see the competing arguments.  As reported in today’s New York Law Journal, by Andrew Keshner  " O’Melveny & Myers, fighting to dismiss a state suit brought by alumni of an elite Brooklyn prep school that was represented by the firm in a prior federal action, said the alumni cannot sue the firm with "previously abandoned" claims of purported deception on the courts.

In December, 10 Poly Prep Country Day School alumni and two former summer camp participants settled a closely-watched Eastern District lawsuit stemming from alleged decades of abuse by the school’s football coach, Philip Foglietta, now deceased, and the school’s concealment of the actions.

Less than a year after the confidential settlement, many of the same plaintiffs sued O’Melveny and Jeffrey Kohn, the New York managing partner, in Manhattan Supreme Court. Pointing to state Judiciary Law §487—which forbids attorneys’ "deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party"—the alumni said the defendants should be held accountable for "their grievous and oft-repeated falsehoods" when defending the school in the federal suit (NYLJ, Aug. 15)."

""After settling an earlier federal court litigation on confidential terms, Plaintiffs are now seeking more money by bringing a new action in which they repeat spurious allegations that the defense lawyers made ‘misrepresentations’ in the earlier action. Plaintiffs made—and then voluntarily abandoned—the identical allegations in the earlier federal proceedings. Plaintiffs’ improper attempt to revive in a new action the allegations they previously abandoned fails as a matter of law for several reasons," O’Melveny said in Zimmerman v. Kohn, 652826/2013."

We often wonder whether legal malpractice cases are subject to a higher form of scrutiny, although it may also be true that mistakes are more often made by attorneys in their worst (underlying) cases.  In any event sometimes a legal malpractice case goes to the jury on the real question of whether plaintiff could have prevailed in the underlying case (the "but for" issue) and sometimes the legal malpractice case is ended at the motion stage. Here is one that was ended early.

Magidson v Badash ; 2012 NY Slip Op 00935 ;  Appellate Division, Second Department is a legal malpractice case in which the underlying matter remains undescribed. The legal malpractice suffered from infirmities in the underlying case, and failed the "but for" problem.
 

"The complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice because the plaintiff neglected to plead that she would have prevailed in the underlying action, commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, but for the defendants’ alleged malpractice in failing to file certain motions and appeal from certain orders issued in that action (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; Kuzmin v Nevsky, 74 AD3d 896, 898; see also Weiner v Hershman & Leicher, 248 AD2d 193).

Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit. The Appellate Division, First Department, concluded that the complaint in the underlying action was properly dismissed because the plaintiff commenced that action after the applicable statute of limitations had expired (see Magidson v Otterman, 57 AD3d 264, 264), and the proposed amendment, which did not include allegations that the defendants committed malpractice by failing to timely commence the underlying action, would not alter that result (see Matter of New York County DES Litig., 89 NY2d 506, 514; Byrd v Manor, 82 AD3d 813, 815).