Liens in New York

A common law retaining lien entitles the outgoing attorney to retain all papers, securities, or money belonging to the client that came into the attorney’s possession in the course of representation, as security for payment of attorney’s fees. Arising from Judiciary Law 475, it is enforceable only by retention of the items themselves and is lost if the file or documents are no longer in the attorney’s possession. Continue Reading Attorney Liens and Legal Malpractice in NY

Here are new legal malpractice decisions from 11/1/05 – 11/8/05:

1. Selletti v. Liotti: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment fails, AD affirms. “Plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that his conduct in prosecuting the federal action did not contribute to the imposition of the monetary sanction.”

2. Linder v. Dranoff: Defendant successfully moved for summary judgment. AD affirmed. “The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”

3. Collymore v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Dev.: Plaintiff sues real estate closing attorney as part of a much larger case. Statute of limitations ran for attorney. “The complaint alleges that the defendants, one of whom was the plaintiff’s closing attorney, converted her loan proceeds on August 27, 1993. The [**3] plaintiff did not commence the instant action until July 28, 2003. This clearly falls outside the applicable statutes of limitation.”

A NJ resident who was working in Mass dies in a car accident. The Mass hospital had a giant lien. Through a long string of circumstances it ends up suing the NJ attorney representing the estate and the father. The NJ principal of legal malpractice law? “There is no dispute about the facts bearing on Goldberger’s breach of duty, consisting of his correspondence with Kent and his conduct in settling the workers’ compensation case without notice to Kent, the attorney for the Medical Providers. An attorney owes a duty of care to non-clients when the attorney knows, or should know, that the non-client will rely on the attorney’s representations and the non-client is not too remote from the attorney to be entitled to protection. Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 485 (1995).” Continue Reading NJ and Mass Legal Malpractice Case