In a short, one line reversal, the Court of Appeals put to rest a very old legal malpractice case, Gotay v. Breitbart..  The Court of Appeals simply wrote: "Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply."

This is a case that arose in the 1990’s at a time when it was not necessary to purchase an index number, and cases were commenced by service of a summons and complaint.  In this Erbs palsy case against the NYCHHC, we see several traps that personal injury attorneys feared at the time.  Service of the complaint on NYCHHC rather than the hospital, loss of the files in a long intervening period, and failure to purchase an index number when the rules changed.

For a longer discussion of judicial activism and "fanciful" theories see Justice Friedman’s dissent in the Appellate Division.  This dissent, although not credited in the Court of Appeals decision, is the reason for reversal.  It is interesting to note that Justice Lippman wrote the majority opinion in the Appellate Division, which his new court reversed.

From the Dissent:

"This legal malpractice action is the culmination of a long and convoluted chain of events that began three decades ago. Ultimately, however, the lawsuit’s timeliness turns on an attorney’s sworn—and entirely uncontradicted—account of what occurred at his meeting with plaintiff and her father on January 28, 1999, more than three years before the commencement of the action. The attorney (Mark Hankin) avers in his affidavit that, at the January 1999 meeting, he advised plaintiff and her father that his firm would not undertake plaintiff’s representation in a medical malpractice matter arising from her birth in 1977.[FN1] Hankin further states that, in response to his rejection of plaintiff’s case, "plaintiff’s father requested the immediate return of the file."

In opposing defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted no evidence of any kind—not in deposition testimony, not in an affidavit, not in a letter, not in a jotted piece of notepaper—controverting Hankin’s account of the January 28, 1999 meeting. Indeed, Hankin’s account of the meeting is not even challenged in plaintiff’s appellate briefs. The majority nonetheless denies summary judgment to the appealing defendants, based on two theories never suggested by plaintiff. The majority’s first theory is that plaintiff and her father (although neither [*6]makes this claim) were unaware that Michael Handwerker, the attorney who had accepted plaintiff’s matter several years before, had joined Hankin’s firm. The other theory the majority has devised is that Hankin’s claim that plaintiff’s father requested the return of the file at the January 1999 meeting is somehow placed in doubt by boilerplate language in Hankin’s follow-up letter, dated February 22, 1999, offering to return the file "[i]n the event you require the whole or any portion thereof."

Here is a blackletter rule:  You must obtain consent from the Worker’s Compensation carrier before settling a personal injury action in which there was WC payments.  If you don’t, the WC carrier takes a ‘vacation" and the plaintiff stops getting money.  Easy, No?

in Flaherty v Attie ;2009 NY Slip Op 51296(U) ; Supreme Court, Queens County ; Markey, J. we see what happens.  Our guess is that plaintiff stopped getting paid a few months after settling the case. but the decision does not supply this detail.  Plaintiffs sue their attorney, and lose on statute of limitations grounds.
 

"[P]laintiffs commenced their action against defendant to recover damages for, inter alia, legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs allege that, in 1998, they retained the legal services of defendant to represent them in an underlying personal injury suit. The injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff John J. Flaherty (Flaherty) occurred during the course of his employment. On December 24, 1998, a retainer agreement was signed, and defendant filed a summons and complaint on March 26, 1999 in connection with the underlying accident. During the pendency of that action, Flaherty was receiving workers’ compensation benefits, said benefits creating a lien against plaintiffs and their potential recovery.  [D]efendant Attie had failed to obtain pre-settlement consent from the workers’ compensation carrier and/or the New York State Insurance Fund and/or plaintiff’s [*3]employer, which ultimately negatively affected plaintiffs’ right to future workers’ compensation benefits; and failure to obtain such clearance, approval, or consent constituted legal malpractice. Plaintiffs, furthermore, allege that defendant’s failure to disclose this to plaintiffs was an attempt by defendant to fraudulently conceal any alleged malpractice.
 

In or about 2006, plaintiffs contacted defendant Attie with regard to the above circumstances. Plaintiffs allege that from 2006 until May of 2008, a new attorney-client relationship was formed by defendant Attie undertaking the responsibility to seek nunc pro tunc consent and approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs contend that, in so doing, defendant Attie made affirmative representations to plaintiffs that he would and could secure such consent and approval and, that, in May 2008, defendant Attie acknowledged to plaintiffs that he failed to seek nunc pro tunc consent to the settlement during this time. Plaintiffs claim that the above constituted a second instance of legal malpractice, as well as fraudulent concealment, by making affirmative representations that defendant Attie could do that which he could not, and by, again, failing to disclose to plaintiffs the malpractice which he had allegedly committed in 2001. Plaintiffs then filed the subject suit on December 18, 2008.

On the contrary, plaintiffs improperly attempt to convert defendant’s alleged failure to obtain pre-settlement consent — a negligent act — into an active, ongoing, concealment. However, failure to disclose the wrongdoing is insufficient to invoke this "uncommon remedy," which requires fraudulent behavior (Ross, 8 NY3d at 491; see also, Zumpano, 6 NY3d at 675; Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977 [1994]; Ferdinand v Crecca & Blair, 5 AD3d 538, lv. to appeal denied, 5 NY3d 710 [2004]). Based on the above, plaintiffs failed to show that they were prevented from bringing suit due to their justifiable reliance on some intentional [*5]misrepresentation made by defendant after his alleged failure to obtain pre-settlement consent (see, Bevinetto, 51 AD3d at 614). The fact that defendant claimed on the closing statement that there were no "medical liens" does not rise to the level of wrongfully inducing plaintiffs not to file suit; rather, this speaks to the alleged malpractice about which plaintiffs are complaining. By plaintiffs’ own admission, they had no contact whatsoever with defendant until sometime in 2006. Notably, then, there is no evidence of any type of ongoing misrepresentation made to plaintiffs for an approximate five-year period (see, e.g., Melnitzky v Hollander, 16 AD3d 192 [1st Dept.], lv. to appeal denied, 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). "

Legal Malpractice is unique, in that lawyers write the rules for suing lawyers, and those cases are heard by lawyers.  This situation does not obtain in any other field of jurisprudence.  Here is an interesting case from Small Claims Court and a report from the NYLJ by Mark Fass.  Read the case for its wide-ranging discussion of Citibank’s practices, and its findings on Claimant’s attorney, who was not present nor a party.

"A Staten Island judge has thrown out a small claims action over a broken furnace filed by the buyer of a house against the seller’s attorney."""This is another case of what appears to be a disturbing trend of litigation being brought by persons suing attorneys who did not represent them for that attorney’s proper representation of his or her client," Judge Straniere wrote in DeFelice v. Costagliola, 81/09. "The theory behind bringing these baseless legal actions being that owing to the small amount of money involved, the lawyer would pay the claim rather than engage in the cost of litigation."

"Claimant testified that when he moved into the premises on December 12, 2008 the furnace was not operating properly. Claimant had temporary repairs done on December 13, 2008 at a cost of $425.00 and then on December 18, 2008 paid $1,800.00 for the installation of a new furnace. Claimant spoke to his attorney whom, the claimant credibly testified, advised him to sue the seller’s lawyer because the seller allegedly had moved from New York. There is no evidence as to the new address of the seller and if she is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. "

"Claimant’s cause of action is dismissed on the merits. Defendant has no personal liability for the actions or inactions of his client. Defendant is not a stakeholder pursuant to an escrow agreement nor did he personally promise to perform any obligations for his client. This suit is completely baseless. The court commends the claimant for being honest and forthright admitting that his attorney suggested that he bring this suit, however, there are consequences of his actions. Defendant was required to incur the expense of hiring an attorney to represent him in this matter and was subjected to public ridicule as a defendant in a crowded small claims courtroom in regard to an alleged breach of contract arising from his work as an attorney.

Many times in legal malpractice cases, courts find causes of action to be duplicitive.  Some of this arises from over-pleading.  As an example, plaintiff may plead legal malpractice, negligence, breach of contact, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and so on  Courts will trim these causes of action, all the while assuring plaintiff that any damages will still be permitted before the jury.

In our continued examination of SMARTIX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a.k.a. SMARTIX INTERNATIONAL, LLC, – against – GARRUBBO, ROMANKOW & CAPESE, P.C. AND ANTHONY RINALDO, ; 06 Civ. 1501 (JGK); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29114; 
March 30, 2009,  we look at the non-duplicitive cause of action for inflated billing and unjust enrichment.

"The plaintiff brings a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendants on the basis of alleged over-billing. The elements for a claim of unjust enrichment under New York law are: (1) that the defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at the plaintiff’s expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require the defendants to make restitution. See, e.g., Golden Pac. Bancorp v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 273 F.3d 509, 519 (2d Cir. 2001).
 

"In connection with its unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the defendants inflated their bills without justification. The plaintiff produces evidence raising issues of fact with respect to whether bills were inflated without justification. (See, e.g., Dus Decl. Ex. 42 at 10/3/2000 and 10/11/2000 entries.) The defendants do not respond substantively to the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, arguing only that the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed [*28] as duplicative of the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims. See, e.g., Town of Wallkill v. Rosenstein, 40 A.D.3d 972, 837 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 (App. Div. 2007) (holding that claims for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, should be dismissed because "[t]hey were merely duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action, as they arose from the same facts and did not allege distinct and different damages").

This argument is without merit, because the unjust enrichment claim is not duplicative of any of the legal malpractice claims. The unjust enrichment claim alleges that the defendants inflated their legal bills. The legal malpractice claims allege errors in judgment and performance by the defendants with respect to the legal services they provided to the plaintiff. Plainly these are different claims relying on different facts.

In a well-reasoned opinion from the SDNY, Judge Koeltl determined that plaintiff may continue with three claims against the attorneys.  In SMARTIX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a.k.a. SMARTIX INTERNATIONAL, LLC,  – against – GARRUBBO, ROMANKOW & CAPESE, P.C. AND ANTHONY RINALDO, 6 Civ. 1501 (JGK); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29114;March 30, 2009, Decided
 

In this case, Smartix, a corporation with certain ticketing intellectual property, was in the business of selling and licensing that technology, and wanted to enter into a contract with Mastercard.  They retained the defendant law firm to advise them on the contract negotiation, to engage in corporate governance, and put one of the attorneys on the board.

Things went wrong with the MC contract and then Smartix was sued by plaintiffs named Metzger.  Plaintiffs retained defendants to defend that suit.  In this blog entry we’ll look at the legal malpractice claims, and in tomorrow’s we’ll look at the unjust enrichment claim.

Plaintiffs complained that defendants failed to advise them correctly on the Mastercard contract negotiation and left them open to Mastercard’s exploitation.  Beyond that, they claim malpractice when defendant attorney failed to attend a court ordered mediation session, [as well as the other attorneys] and was open to a sanctions hearing for which they billed plaintiffs.

Judge Koeltl denied summary judgment on both counts. "The plaintiff’s first legal malpractice claim is based on the defendants’ representation of the plaintiff in the course of the Metzger litigation. The plaintiff alleges that it was billed for the defendants’ attendance at a sanctions hearing resulting from Mr. Rinaldo’s failure to attend a court-ordered mediation. The defendants [*11] point out that both Metzger parties failed to attend the court-ordered mediation and that no sanctions were ultimately imposed.

The allegation regarding the sanctions hearing raises an issue of material fact with respect to the plaintiff’s first legal malpractice claim. The plaintiff has provided evidence that it was billed in connection with a sanctions hearing resulting in part from Mr. Rinaldo’s failure to attend a court-ordered mediation.  [T]he failure to follow direct orders from the court would fall below any standard of care. Cf. Logalbo v. Plishkin, Rubano & Baum, 163 A.D.2d 511, 558 N.Y.S.2d 185, 187-88 (App. Div. 1990) (finding in the absence of expert testimony or expert report that attorney who disregarded "clearly defined and firmly imbedded" obligation failed to meet any permissible standard of due care). Moreover, although the defendants point out that the trial judge in the Metzger litigation did not ultimately [*12] impose sanctions on the defendants, they do not argue that this decision by the trial judge precludes a finding of legal malpractice against the defendants, and there is no reason that would be so. Plainly claims for legal malpractice may exist even where attorneys have not been sanctioned for their conduct."
 

"The plaintiff has produced evidence in the form of deposition testimony that the MasterCard Agreement was drafted to the disadvantage of the plaintiff and contained certain vagaries that MasterCard was able to exploit at the expense of the plaintiff. (Katz Dep. at 47-49 ("[The Agreement] was very vague . . . . It did not protect Smartix from MasterCard’s efforts to secure [*19] use of the software outside the contract."), 101 ("The MasterCard Agreement was vague enough so that MasterCard felt that they would roll the dice and try to do these businesses without us, which they subsequently did . . . ."); Huber Dep. at 72 ("It sounds as if MasterCard can do pretty much anything they want with this in one part of the contract . . . . There’s also penalty clauses in here that would cause Smartix enormous damages if they wanted to market this outside of MasterCard . . . .").)
"

Privity of contract is an essential in legal malpractice litigation.  One may not sue the opponent’s attorney; only one’s own.  What makes for privity of contract?  As all know, no writing is necessary to create a contract.  So, can there be privity of contract without a retainer agreement.  Putting aside Rule 137 questions about the attorney’s obligation to provide a writing, in Denise Terio,  v Lance Roger Spodek, Reich Reich & Reich, P.C., 2008-03594, 2008-04435;  SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT; 2009 NY Slip Op 4412; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411June 2, 2009, Decided we see a short answer:
 

"To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff [**4] must prove, inter alia, the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Velasquez v Katz, 42 AD3d 566, 567, 840 N.Y.S.2d 410; Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909, 822 N.Y.S.2d 564; Wei Cheng Chang v Pi, 288 AD2d 378, 380, 733 N.Y.S.2d 471; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283, 654 N.Y.S.2d 160). While a plaintiff’s unilateral belief does not confer upon him or her the status of client (see Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d at 283), an attorney-client relationship may exist in the absence of a formal retainer agreement (see e.g. Swalg Dev. Corp. v Gaines, 274 AD2d 385, 386, 710 N.Y.S.2d 619). To establish an attorney-client relationship there must be an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task (see Wei Cheng Chang v Pi, 288 AD2d 378, 733 N.Y.S.2d 471; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d at 283)."

So often, the practice of law seems to have devolved into an attorney v. client battle over the work and fees.  Here in Morelli & Gold  LLP v. Altman, NY Slip Op 31492(U) we see a large scale battle over a child support/custody case in which there has been litigation, fees, fee dispute, trial de novo, counterclaims and appeals. All this, and the case has not yet left the pleadings stage.

In her 32 page decision, Justice Edmead goes through a complete primer on:

a.  Rule 137 fee disputes, trial de novo, the pleading requirements for a trial de novo, and the forms used;

b.  Defenses and counterclaims after a fee dispute;

c.  Proper pleadings in legal malpractice counterclaims;

d.  The role of res judicata and collateral estoppel in legal malpractice fee disputes.

It’s a long decision,,,look to the link and read through it for a good discussion on these issues.

Legal Malpractice litigation is a world apart from the rest of regular litigation ; it has its own rules, it has its own prinicipals, and is the sole set of rules written by attorneys to regulate attorneys.  Criminal legal malpractice is a world within a world…not unlike a russian doll set.

Here, in a Federal District Court case, we see how criminal defense attorneys enjoy almost total freedom from legal malpractice suits, and how a defamation law suit for words spoken in litigation will have little heft.

In Sash v. Rosahn, 08 cv 4032; Decided: June 16, 2009 ; District Judge Barbara S. Jones;U.S. DISTRICT COURT; SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 

"Plaintiffs bring a variety of claims stemming from Rosahn’s legal representation of Sash at an April 2005 parole revocation hearing, during which Sash pled guilty with explanation to violations of conditional release.

The Court construes Plaintiffs’ Complaint to state claims of legal malpractice, defamation, and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional harm.3

Specifically, Sash alleges that Rosahn committed malpractice in ineffectively representing him at a 2005 parole revocation hearing (including allegations that Rosahn failed to move to suppress certain evidence potentially relevant to the hearing, that Rosahn arranged with officers of the court to "fix" the hearing against Sash, and that Rosahn abaondoned representation of Sash following the hearing), defamed Sash in conversation with officers of the Court following the hearing, and intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional harm on Plaintiff Sash therein.4

On January 17, 2003, Plaintiff Sash was sentenced to a term of one to three years following a guilty plea on a second-degree forgery charge. Sash was placed on conditional release in January of 2005. In February 2005, Sash was arrested at his wife’s residence in New Jersey for violation of his conditional release (leaving the state of New York without permission).

On April 4, 2005, at a parole revocation hearing, Sash pled guilty with explanation to violating the conditions of his release. Rosahn, then an employee of the Legal Aid Society of New York, represented Sash during that hearing and provided the explanation to the charges as requested by Sash.

Directly following the hearing Rosahn spoke with the administrative law judge and the parole specialist, during which conversation transcripts indicate that Rosahn stated, "thank you for biting your tongue," and "I had to bite my tongue," Comp. paras. 41-42. The Complaint alleges that these statements referred to Sash.
 

"[t]o state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from negligent misrepresentation in a criminal proceeding, plaintiff must allege his innocence or a colorable claim of innocence of the underlying offense." Sash v. Dudley, No. 05-cv-7498, 2006 WL 997256, at **2-3 (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 2006); Carmel v. Lunney, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 607 (1987). It is well established under New York law that "so long as the determination of [a plaintiff’s] guilt for that offense remains undisturbed, no cause of action will lie." Id. A guilty plea will therefore generally preclude a defendant from lodging a malpractice claim against his defense lawyer. See Scanio v. Palmiere & Pellegrino, 674 N.Y.S.2d 527, 528 (4th Dep’t 1998); see also Estes v. Doe, No. 97 Civ. 8133, 1999 WL 983886, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 1999). "Thus, a criminal defendant cannot even state a claim for legal malpractice until his conviction is overturned or vacated."