In this action commenced by plaintiffs against defendants based on defendants' representation of plaintiffs in an underlying federal court action, dismissal of the legal malpractice claim was affirmed since the claim rested on retrospective complaints about the outcome of defendants' strategic choices and tactics, without any facts cited to support a claim that the choices were unreasonable. The breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims were reinstated, as they are based on billing issues and are not duplicative of the claims regarding the alleged mishandling of the trial.
Practice point: The firm's failure to anticipate the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the expert report does not establish negligence.
Case: Brenner v. Reiss Eisenpress, LLP, NY Slip Op 07781 (1st Dep't November 9, 2017)
Here is the decision.
