Frequently, clients discern mistakes make in their cases, and wish to start a legal malpractice case.  Unfortunately, departure from good practice is but one of the four elements of legal malpractice.  The merit of most legal malpractice cases is determined by analysis of the middle two points.  Was the mistake a proximate cause of damage

Is it that Plaintiff could not articulate a reason why Defendant made a mistake that caused him damage?  Is it that the Appellate Division just didn’t like the case and agreed that it should be dismissed?  Did the attorneys make a subjectively and objectively reasonable choice of strategy that just didn’t work?  We’ll never know. 

If one reads enough legal malpractice cases, there are interesting overlaps.  One such overlap, with surprising results came up today.  in Angeles v Aronsky   2013 NY Slip Op 02454   Decided on April 11, 2013   Appellate Division, First Department  we see the following: "For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, "a plaintiff must

Hearing that your legal malpractice case is "unavailing" is terrifying.  Nevertheless, this case was dismissed, appealed, reversed, remanded, and immediately dismissed again, this time on summary judgment.  Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP  2013 NY Slip Op 30703(U)  April 5, 2013  Sup Ct, New York County  Docket Number: 114079/2008  Judge: Cynthia S. Kern

Legal malpractice plaintiffs argue that defendant attorney handled the case badly, and then go on to say that if the attorney had done "x", there would have been a better or different outcome.  Defendant argues that this is all "speculation."  If you were the Court, how would you decide?  Remember that legal malpractice analysis is always