Andrew Harris of the NYLJ reports that Marian C. Rice, of L’Abbate Balkan Colavita & Contini lectured on prevention of legal malpractice to a large group. Ms. Rice, who is highly experienced in the defense of Legal malpractice cases told the group that 16% of claims arise from poor communication. Following another trend is that personal injury litigation is the most rife with legal malpractice claims. Details here

DANIEL H. WILLIAMS, III, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v DOUGLAS S. COPPOLA, MARK C. RODGERS, RODGERS & COPPOLA, LLP, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT
2005 NY Slip Op 8379

Cause of action for Fraud dismissed: “It is well settled that a cause of action for fraud does not arise where the only fraud alleged merely relates to a party’s alleged intent to breach a contractual obligation” (767 Third Ave. v Greble & Finger, 8 AD3d 75, 76, 778 N.Y.S.2d 157; see Modell’s N.Y. v Noodle Kidoodle, 242 A.D.2d 248, 249, 662 N.Y.S.2d 24).

Cause of action for Punitive Damages dismissed: The causes of action for breach of the contingent fee agreement and legal malpractice do not allege conduct that was directed to the general public or that evinced the [*2] requisite “high degree of moral turpitude” or “wanton dishonesty” to support a claim for punitive damages (Walker v Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405, 179 N.E.2d 497, 223 N.Y.S.2d 488; see Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y., 83 N.Y.2d 603, 613, 634 N.E.2d 940, 612 N.Y.S.2d 339; Robbins v Harris Beach & Wilcox, 291 A.D.2d 797, 799, 737 N.Y.S.2d 486).

Here is a report from the St. Claire Record about a legal malpractice case arising from a medical malpractice case, in which the defendant attorney was granted a change of venue and a new trial. For detalis, click here. The attorney, John Hopkins, was found to have deviated from good and accepted standards, but the appellate court found the verdict against the weight.

“The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Hopkins breached the standard of care he owed to his client,” Judge Hopkins wrote.

“However, considering the particular circumstances in the present case, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that but for Hopkins’ breach of the standard of care, the plaintiffs would have received an amount in excess of $200,000 for their wrongful-death-of-a-minor claim, properly filed in Alexander County.

“We therefore find that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the circuit court should have granted a new trial.”