Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Malpractice Blogs -> New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal Malpractice

: New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

Collateral Estoppel, The Underlying Case and Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

ADVERTISEMENTS

The decision is somewhat short on details, but points to the most unique part of legal malpractice litigation. When lawyers are sued for their professional acts, plaintiff must prove that "but for" the attorney's acts there would have been a better or more favorable outcome. In Millennium Import, LLC v Reed Smith LLP ;2010 NY Slip Op 07800 ;Decided on November 4, 2010 ;Appellate Division, First Department we see defendant's attempt to get the case dismissed on the basis of a perceived shortcoming which would insulate the attorneys.

Defendants would argue that the giving or lack of giving of a certain notice in the underlying action deprived their client of the ability to fix problems for plaintiff, or was the cause of the bad outcome. Hence, because plaintiffs gave or failed to give notice, they cannot blame the attorneys. The Court, without a lot of discussion determined that the notice or lack of notice did not necessarily establish that the attorneys could not have fixed the situation.

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on November 05, 2010 (boomark / email).