We’ve been revisiting this theme over the past year. When one thinks legal malpractice, the most common image is that of the personal injury client whose statute of limitations was blown.  However, today we see a significant rise of legal malpractice in the financial field.  Trustees in bankruptcy, receivers and cases coming out of the…

Do politics play a part in justice?  Often clients believe that a judge is biased either for them or against them.  At times the client ascribes that bias to politics.

Attorneys make large contributions to judicial campaigns.  A recent article in the NYLJ described one upstate powerhouse law firm which routinely made contributions of $…

Privity is the term which describes the relationship between plaintiff and a specific attorney.  People are not permitted to sue attorneys, in legal malpractice, unless there has been a professional relationship between them.  While it may seem obvious in a general sense, the devil is, as always, in the details.  May an executror sue the…

Privity of representation by an attorney of the client is a bedrock concept of legal malpractice.  One interesting situation is in union paid attorney representation.  An alluring benefit of membership in a union is pre-paid or free legal representation in certain situations,  This benefit may mean that there is no real attorney-client relationship sufficient for…

A common law retaining lien, known also as a "general possessory 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" 

A retaining lien arises from Judiciary Law  475  and is…

In this legal malpractice case, Provenzano v. Pearlman [subscription], recently decided in EDNY, plaintiff was struck in the head by an errant television camera, while on the set of a news TV show.  She went to trial in Supreme Kings and lost.  Now, she sues her attorneys in EDNY. 

Defendants, who represented themselves in…

An unintentionally amusing NY Law Journal article cataloged the social and professional prominence of this Suffolk law firm.  When it was sued in Nassau, it moved to change venue to Suffolk.  Supreme Court approved the transfer of venue.  Per the CPLR one might move in the county where the action is brought or in the…

In this case, plaintiff counterclaimed for legal malpractice in the face of a claim for attorney fees.  Hass & Gottlieb v Sook Hi Lee ,2008 NY Slip Op 08015 ,Appellate Division, First Department

While not specifically stated, it appears that there were procedural bumps along the way.  Not filing for a jury trial, defendant was not permitted to ask for one later.  More intreguing is the AD’s statement:  "The court was within its discretion in refusing to recuse itself. The judge’s remarks complained of were not ad hominem attacks, but observations of defendant’s credibility and conduct in three related cases."

"Even if plaintiff, in this action for attorney’s fees, had been negligent and responsible for defendant failing to obtain a ruling fixing the effective date of her interest in a closely held corporation, defendant failed to show that she suffered any actual harm as a result (IGEN, Inc. v White, 250 AD2d 463 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]). There was no evidence of dividends paid out that defendant was unable to collect. Furthermore, in the six years since the underlying judgment, defendant took no steps to bring additional proceedings to cure the alleged defect, so her claims of damages for extra expenses and costs were purely speculative. Similarly, defendant failed to raise any grounds for challenging the trial court’s dismissal, following a six-day nonjury trial, of her claim for the return of documents. "Continue Reading Plaintiff Loses Both Ends of A Legal Malpractice Case