Legal Malpractice

A "High Bar" in Bankruptcy Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

In this Bankruptcy-Legal Malpractice Case In re Monahan Ford Corp. of Flushing, Debtor. Richard J. McCord, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Monahan Ford Corp. of Flushing, Plaintiff -against- Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, Defendant.

Case No. 02-23134-CEC, Chapter 7, Adv. Pro. No. 04-1496-CEC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

the Trustee in Bankruptcy brought an action against defendants "The trustee for a Chapter 7 debtor asserted claims against a law firm for legal malpractice in their representation of the then-Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession. The trustee filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to all issues except damages and the firm filed a cross motion for summary judgment. "

Of specific interest is the folling rendition of the "but for" rule:

"However, even if [*13] an attorney's conduct was negligent, the requirement that a plaintiff show that but for the negligence it would have not been injured, sets a "high bar" to proving that the attorney committed legal malpractice. Littman Krooks Roth & Ball v. N.J. Sports Prods. Inc., Case No. 00 CIV. 9419 (NRB), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12677, 2001 WL 963949, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001). This last element "seeks to insure a tight causal relationship exists between the claimed injuries and the alleged malpractice, and demands a nexus between loss and injury even closer than that required by the proximate cause prong." Sloane v. Reich, Case No. 90 Civ. 8187 (SS), 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2851, 1994 WL 88008, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 1994). "

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on July 31, 2008 (boomark / email).