During the 45 years Wilson Elser has led in the defense of attorneys against allegations of legal malpractice, related claims and disciplinary proceedings have undergone explosive growth. Unremitting financial pressures further exaggerate this trend, with clients especially sensitive to unproductive litigation and frustrated by adverse outcomes.

Our national team comprises more than 50 attorneys, each contributing considerable related experience along with a keen understanding of the underlying matters at the heart of malpractice claims. Such claims can range from the most basic services to the most sophisticated, including complex securities transactions, environmental claims, intellectual property disputes and more.

Our defense of an attorney begins with an immediate and comprehensive assessment of both the underlying matter and the malpractice claim, with a focus on early dismissal through pre-answer dispositive motions. While these pre-answer motions are frequently successful, we simultaneously formulate early resolution strategies such as ADR, consistent with our clients’ objectives.

Suits initiated by attorneys to collect fees can be especially perilous, as they frequently result in prompt counterclaims for malpractice. To avoid fruitless litigation, we often seek early “global” resolution by informally “mediating” the fee claim through a review of the quality of service provided, the results obtained and the total fees outstanding. The purpose of this aggressive “all-in” approach is early resolution and avoidance of fruitless litigation.

Of course, the best way to counter legal malpractice claims is to prevent their occurrence. Experience helps us recognize where an attorney’s practice can be modified to reduce the risk of professional liability claims. In certain instances, our attorneys serve as general counsel to firms in addressing ethical or practice-related questions that arise when representing clients. In fact, leading legal malpractice insurers employ us to furnish risk management services at firms they insure. We also counsel and are in high demand to lecture on the topic of professional liability exposures and risk management. In addition, our attorneys address the ever-increasing exposure faced by the legal profession as members of various bar association committees.

Lawyers' Liability

Portrait of Audrey Tam
Audrey Tam

Of Counsel

Tina Zerilli
Tina Zerilli

Assistant General Counsel

Lawyers' Liability

Lawyers' Liability

Events

During the 45 years Wilson Elser has led in the defense of attorneys against allegations of legal malpractice, related claims and disciplinary proceedings have undergone explosive growth. Unremitting financial pressures further exaggerate this trend, with clients especially sensitive to unproductive litigation and frustrated by adverse outcomes.

Our national team comprises more than 50 attorneys, each contributing considerable related experience along with a keen understanding of the underlying matters at the heart of malpractice claims. Such claims can range from the most basic services to the most sophisticated, including complex securities transactions, environmental claims, intellectual property disputes and more.

Our defense of an attorney begins with an immediate and comprehensive assessment of both the underlying matter and the malpractice claim, with a focus on early dismissal through pre-answer dispositive motions. While these pre-answer motions are frequently successful, we simultaneously formulate early resolution strategies such as ADR, consistent with our clients’ objectives.

Suits initiated by attorneys to collect fees can be especially perilous, as they frequently result in prompt counterclaims for malpractice. To avoid fruitless litigation, we often seek early “global” resolution by informally “mediating” the fee claim through a review of the quality of service provided, the results obtained and the total fees outstanding. The purpose of this aggressive “all-in” approach is early resolution and avoidance of fruitless litigation.

Of course, the best way to counter legal malpractice claims is to prevent their occurrence. Experience helps us recognize where an attorney’s practice can be modified to reduce the risk of professional liability claims. In certain instances, our attorneys serve as general counsel to firms in addressing ethical or practice-related questions that arise when representing clients. In fact, leading legal malpractice insurers employ us to furnish risk management services at firms they insure. We also counsel and are in high demand to lecture on the topic of professional liability exposures and risk management. In addition, our attorneys address the ever-increasing exposure faced by the legal profession as members of various bar association committees.

Lawyers' Liability

Yee and Catalanotti Secure Legal Malpractice Claim Dismissal at Pleading Stage

Stephanie Yee (Associate-San Francisco, CA) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) secured dismissal of a highly contested legal malpractice action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) filed on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney clients. In support of their motion, Stephanie and Peter successfully argued that the attorneys’ conduct constituted protected speech and warranted dismissal at the pleading stage. After taking the motion under submission for many months, the judge dismissed all claims against our clients and set a briefing schedule for an attorney’s fees motion.

Stephanie Yee and Peter C. Catalanotti

Thome and Mangano Prevail in Non-Payment Dispute

Sheri Thome (Partner-Las Vegas) and Shawn Mangano (Of Counsel-Las Vegas) represented a lawyer who was sued for malpractice for failing to prepare adequate damages disclosures before withdrawing from a commercial case for non-payment. Substitute counsel undertook representation and provided supplemental damage disclosures the day before the close of discovery. The disclosures were inadequate, and were made more than eight months after our client had withdrawn.  The court eventually granted a motion in limine that included a finding that new counsel had willfully violated disclosure obligations, thereby justifying claim-terminating sanctions. Subsequently, the former client filed separate lawsuits against both firms. Our client moved for summary judgment on causation, arguing that substitute counsel – and not our client – was responsible for any damages incurred by the plaintiff by virtue of the court ruling on the motion in limine. At oral argument, the Court granted summary judgment in our client's favor.

Sheri Thome and Shawn A. Mangano

Billek and Terranova Defeat Legal Malpractice Claims on Standing and Jurisdiction Grounds

Maxwell Billek (Partner – Madison, NJ) and Melissa Terranova (Associate – Madison, NJ) secured a complete victory in a highly complex legal malpractice action pending in the New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a bankruptcy law firm.

The matter involved extensive and significant motion practice in a procedurally intricate case arising out of a prior bankruptcy proceeding. In moving for summary judgment, Max and Melissa advanced multiple independent procedural grounds for dismissal.

First, they established that the individual plaintiff lacked standing to assert legal malpractice claims because he was not the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy matter and therefore suffered no legally cognizable injury. Second, they demonstrated that the corporate plaintiff likewise lacked standing, as any potential claims belonged exclusively to the bankruptcy estate and could only be pursued by the trustee. Finally, they successfully argued that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims arose directly from the administration of the bankruptcy estate and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

The court agreed on all grounds - including substantive grounds involving the lack of an attorney-client relationship. It granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, dismissed all claims with prejudice on both procedural and substantive bases, and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety.

This result reflects a decisive and comprehensive defense victory in a sophisticated legal malpractice matter involving standing, bankruptcy-estate ownership of claims, and jurisdictional principles.

Maxwell L. Billek and Melissa C. Terranova

Brown and Maier Defeat Legal Malpractice Claim on Summary Judgment

Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford Judicial District, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut attorney. In this legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action, the plaintiff claimed that our client, who represented the plaintiff in an underlying product liability matter, failed to file a timely objection to a summary judgment motion, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Irena and Steve moved for summary judgment on both counts, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that he would have prevailed in the underlying action – an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims. In support of their motion, the Stamford team relied on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in the present case and the expert disclosures from the underlying matter, and submitted additional moving papers addressing the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The Court agreed with Steve and Irena’s arguments, finding that the record was devoid of evidence supporting a rational inference that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying case, and granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Stephen P. Brown and Irena Maier

Boone, Mueller, and Lang Secure Complete Dismissal in Legal Malpractice Case

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY), Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY), and Kieren R. Lang (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, obtaining dismissal of all claims against their client, a respected law firm. The court held that the client firm could not be held liable for malpractice because it never represented the plaintiff, and because a lawyer’s past conduct cannot be imputed to a new firm joined after the alleged wrongdoing occurred. The plaintiff had named the client firm solely because his former attorneys later joined it – long after their representation had ended.  

In support of the motion to dismiss, Rich, Siobhán, and Kieran argued that all claims against the client firm must fail because it had no involvement in the underlying dispute and, as such, the plaintiff never had an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The team further maintained that the plaintiff’s claims were based on speculation, conclusory allegations, and impermissible second-guessing of the attorneys’ legal strategies, and therefore did not rise to the level of actionable malpractice, fraud, or a violation of the Judiciary Act, as alleged. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments, granting the motion to dismiss.

Richard W. Boone, Jr., Siobhán A. Mueller and Kieran R. Lang

Smith and Foster Obtain Motion to Dismiss in Legal Malpractice Defense

Brigitte Smith (Partner-Baltimore, MD) and Brian Foster (Of Counsel-Baltimore, MD) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Maryland, on behalf of the firm’s attorney clients in a legal malpractice action. The action was the latest in a series filed by the plaintiff against his family members and legal professionals asserting claims for financial exploitation of an elder, conspiracy, and legal malpractice. The plaintiff claimed his elderly mother had been abducted by her sisters, who conspired with the defendant attorneys to have her execute documents at a time when she lacked capacity, thereby diminishing the value of the estate. Brigitte and Brian, however, argued that the plaintiff, who was seeking $488,000, did not qualify under the third-party beneficiary exception. The court agreed, barring his claims for legal malpractice as a matter of law. 

Brigitte J. Smith and Brian C. Foster

Francoeur and Weisman Obtain Strategic Early Dismissal for Attorney Against Fraud Claim

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York) and Hayley Weisman (Associate-New York) obtained early dismissal of a fraud claim in the Kings County Supreme Court, Brooklyn, New York, against an attorney who represented the plaintiff’s ex-wife at the closing of the sale of the former marital residence. The plaintiff alleged that the attorney fraudulently transferred the property in 2013 without his knowledge or consent, invoking the two-year discovery rule to revive the otherwise time-barred claim and asserting he first learned of the purported fraud in 2024. Joe and Hayley filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations and citing a 2015 New Jersey Family Court filing in which the plaintiff sought judicial intervention regarding the distribution of the sale proceeds – demonstrating he knew of the sale and could have discovered the purported fraud at that time. In arguing the motion, Hayley directed the court to the judgment of divorce, which granted the ex-wife a receivership over the plaintiffs’ interest in the property – a key fact that undermined the fraud claim entirely. The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff was on notice of the title transfer and the sale, that the discovery rule did not apply, and that the claim was time-barred. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

Joseph L. Francoeur and Hayley Weisman

Legal Malpractice Claim Dismissed: Mathis and Haney Win for Attorney Removed Weeks Before Trial

Haley Mathis (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) and Erin Haney (Associate-Mclean, VA) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice claim in Fairfax County Circuit Court, Virginia, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney-client. The plaintiff in this matter retained our client to represent her in a 2022 divorce action but terminated the representation several weeks before trial. The plaintiff later alleged she was left without counsel during a complex divorce proceeding wherein the Circuit Court divided and distributed the couple’s property in accordance with Virginia law governing equitable distribution. Dissatisfied with the result, the plaintiff sued our client, claiming she would have received a more favorable equitable-distribution outcome had he represented her more effectively prior to her terminating him. The court sustained Haley and Erin’s demurrer, agreeing with their arguments that an alleged violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not give rise to a civil cause of action or a basis for liability, and that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a breach of any purported duty and a proximate cause of damages beyond conclusory allegations.

Haley B. Mathis and Erin L. Haney

Stoberski & Adams Secure Judgment as a Matter of Law After Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief

Michael Stoberski (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) and Nicholas Adams (Associate-Las Vegas, NV), after the plaintiff rested in a bench trial in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, were granted their NRCP 52(c) motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the court entered judgment for Wilson Elser’s attorney clients on the plaintiff’s sole legal malpractice claim. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove essential elements of legal malpractice, including the standard of care, breach, and proximate cause. During the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Mike and Nicholas introduced evidence showing that the challenged strategy rested on legal research, client communications, and the need to secure affirmative relief in light of the opposing party’s filings in the underlying action. The court agreed that these issues were nuanced and not suitable for resolution without expert testimony, and it found that the plaintiff offered no competent evidence that a different pleading approach would have produced a better outcome or that the defense’s conduct foreclosed any post-judgment remedies.

Michael E. Stoberski and Nicholas F. Adams

Pham, Yee & Catalanotti Victorious at Court of Appeal in Legal Malpractice Case

San Francisco associates Quincy Pham and Stephanie Yee, along with partner Peter Catalanotti were successful at the California Court of Appeal in a contested legal malpractice case. The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case based on a demurrer sustained without leave to amend. 

Peter C. Catalanotti and Stephanie Yee

Francoeur Wins Favorable Decision Granting Pre-answer Motion to Dismiss a Legal Malpractice Complaint in New Jersey

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York, NY) achieved early dismissal of a legal malpractice claim filed against a Florida attorney who represented a lessor in lease negotiations for a property in New Jersey. The plaintiff, the non-client lessee, alleged that the attorney failed to advise of the terms of an accompanying easement at the time of the lease negotiations, and filed a lawsuit against the attorney and various other parties, including its own attorney, in New Jersey State Court. Joe filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that as the attorney did not represent the plaintiff in the lease negotiations there is no duty owed to the non-client. The plaintiff opposed the motion claiming reliance on the attorney’s representations regarding the easement terms and further claimed that the attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law within New Jersey. Joe responded by asserting that at the time of the lease negotiations plaintiff and its attorney had actual knowledge of the terms of the easement and further that there was no unauthorized practice of law as the attorney worked with local New Jersey counsel throughout the negotiations and subsequent drafting of the lease. The court agreed with each of Joe’s arguments finding that the attorney does not owe any duty to the non-client plaintiff and that the attorney did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, the court granted Joe’s motion dismissing the complaint. 

Joseph L. Francoeur

Quincy Pham and Peter Catalanotti Secure Legal Malpractice Claim Dismissal at Pleading Stage

Quincy Pham (Associate-San Francisco) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco) had a demurrer sustained without leave to amend in the California Superior Court of San Francisco County, in a contested legal malpractice case brought against Wilson Elser’s attorney client. Notwithstanding having afforded the plaintiffs several opportunities to amend their complaint, the court agreed with Quincy and Peter’s arguments challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint, sustaining their demurrer without leave to amend based upon the applicable statute of limitations, CCP Section 340.6, and dismissing the case. 

Peter C. Catalanotti

Catalanotti and Tam Prevail in Hotly Contested Legal Malpractice Case

Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) and Audrey Tam (Of Counsel-San Francisco, CA) won summary judgment on a hotly contested legal malpractice case in Orange County Superior Court. Audrey’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on statute of limitations grounds (CCP §340.6). Prior to the motion, the plaintiff’s demand was more than $700,000. The Court signed a judgment awarding approximately $16,000 in costs.

Peter C. Catalanotti and Audrey Tam

Blair, Merlo & Duff Prevail on Behalf of Attorney Client in Contentious Post-Decree Appeal

Kimberly Blair (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Chicago associates Robert Merlo and Thomas Duff represented the attorney for the wife in a very contentious divorce case; specifically, representing her in post-decree proceedings stemming from the husband’s refusal to turn over significant sums of money, over which he was held in indirect civil contempt and jailed. Subsequently, the husband filed suit against his ex-wife, his former business partner, and his wife’s attorneys (including our client) on allegations of aiding and abetting, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy – suggesting that our client’s conduct was part of a nefarious legal strategy. Kim, Robert, and Thomas were successful at having the matter dismissed with prejudice at the trial court level based on the absolute litigation privilege. An impressive brief written on appeal by Robert and Thomas convinced the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District to affirm the trial court’s decision in an extensive opinion that further solidified the litigation privilege in the State of Illinois. 

Kimberly E. Blair and Robert F. Merlo

Blair, Stafford, Merlo and Duff Secure Affirmance in Precedent-Setting Legal Malpractice Case

A Chicago office team comprising partners Kimberly Blair and Joseph Stafford and associates Robert Merlo and Thomas Duff secured the First District Court of Appeals’ affirmance of a dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint for legal malpractice against our law firm client. A the circuit court level, the team brought in our client’s predecessor counsel as a third party, alleging that because discovery in the underlying case closed on their watch, there was nothing our client could have done to remedy the alleged malpractice. The predecessor counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on our third-party complaint based on the successor counsel (viability) doctrine, and the court denied it, holding that by the time it appeared in the underlying case, nothing our client could have done would have prevented the unfavorable outcome for the plaintiffs in the underlying action. After that ruling, the plaintiffs were given one more chance to state a claim, but they would have had to wholly shift their theory of malpractice. The court then dismissed that complaint (with prejudice) because the plaintiffs’ allegations about what they would have done were contradicted by what they actually did in response to the underlying judgment, through yet another successor attorney.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the district court judge was incorrect to hold, as a matter of law, that no arguments could have defeated the underlying dispositive motions and improperly took judicial notice of post-judgment proceedings from the underlying case in dismissing the plaintiffs’ “last-ditch” third amended complaint. The First District affirmed, and comprehensively laid out why it agreed with our many arguments in the Response Brief. Notably, the First District’s conclusion in its published opinion essentially mirrored our conclusion in our Response Brief.
 

Kimberly E. Blair and Robert F. Merlo

Pham Picks Up “Drive-By” Client at Successful Case Closing

Quincy Pham (Associate-San Francisco, CA), in a recent legal malpractice case, doggedly filed demurrer after demurrer against the unrelenting pro se plaintiffs, a former client and his father. These plaintiffs would accuse Quincy of all sorts of misdeeds, require literal hours-long meet and confer calls, and add new allegations and documents with each amended complaint. While the original complaint was 10 pages, the full additional charge was 132 pages, and the opposition to one of the demurrers was in excess of 400 pages. Ultimately, the Court sustained Quincy’s demurrer without leave to amend. A few days after Quincy got the case dismissed, Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) received a call from an attorney in San Mateo who needed representation in a case brought by a pro se/former client. He had seen the tentative ruling and eventual order on the demurrer Quincy filed and decided he wanted our team to represent him. We confirmed that we were on panel with his carrier and were assigned the case.

Thome and Stoberski Secure Unanimous Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case

Sheri Thome (Partner-Las Vegas) and Michael Stoberski (Of Counsel-Las Vegas) secured a defense verdict in the Clark County District Court on behalf of a local attorney and law firm. The plaintiff, a client of the firm, brought a legal malpractice lawsuit alleging that the firm’s failure to advise her in an area outside of its scope of practice resulted in her exposure to criminal charges and various damages. Following the two-week jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict after one hour of deliberation, quashing a demand at trial for $2 million.

Sheri Thome and Michael E. Stoberski

Boone and Mueller Prevail on Motion to Dismiss in Lawyer’s Malpractice Case in NY Supreme Court

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) recently prevailed on a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss in New York Supreme Court in a legal malpractice case brought by a union member against the attorney retained by the union to represent the plaintiff in an arbitration hearing conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In their motion to dismiss, Rich and Siobhán argued that all claims against the attorney must be dismissed as barred under well-settled precedent holding union lawyers immune from malpractice suits brought by union members. They also argued that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because (1) their client had no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish any breach of the standard of care, and (3) the plaintiff’s claim was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. The court agreed and dismissed the case against our client, holding a “cause of action for malpractice cannot be maintained as against an individual attorney hired by the plaintiff’s union to handle a disciplinary proceeding under the union’s CBA.” Rather, “a plaintiff is limited to bringing an action against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation because, in that instance, the plaintiff's malpractice claims are preempted by federal labor law, as those claims arise out of defendant attorney’s representation of the union during the plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings under the union’s CBA.”

Richard W. Boone, Jr. and Siobhán A. Mueller

Madison Team Obtains Summary Judgment For Personal Injury Firm in Legal Malpractice Matter

The Madison, New Jersey team comprised of Kathleen Williams (Of Counsel), partner Maxwell Billek and associate Gina Brignola obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, in a legal malpractice action brought against our client, a personal injury law firm. In an underlying matter, the firm represented the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against a contractor. The plaintiff, a police officer, was struck by a construction vehicle owned by the contractor while directing traffic at a construction site, causing severe injuries inhibiting his ability to ever return to work.

The court dismissed the underlying matter after the contractor's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, ruling that the law firm failed to file timely and appropriate opposition to the motion. The plaintiff's legal malpractice lawsuit against our client ensued. After discovery and a month before the trial was to begin, the Madison team obtained summary judgment after successfully arguing that the plaintiff was a special employee of the contractor and, as such, was only entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Accordingly, regardless of the law firm's conduct in the underlying matter, the plaintiff could not succeed in the 3rd party suit against the contractor. In a 23-page opinion, the Court agreed and granted Wilson Elser's motion for summary judgment, staving off a last demand of $2 million.
 

Kathleen G. Williams, Maxwell L. Billek and Gina V. Brignola

Dalena and Billek Obtain Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case

Anne Dalena (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Maxwell Billek (Partner-Madison, NJ) represented a prominent New Jersey employment law firm that defended the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case against a shipping and supply chain management company. Plaintiff alleged that his former lawyer failed him in several respects, including failing to be fully familiar with the record and failing to file a proper opposition to the summary judgement motion filed by his employer. After the deposition of the plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, Anne and Max moved for summary judgment on the basis that the expert could not state within a reasonable degree of certainty how the result would have been any different if the attorney had been more familiar with the record or had written a better opposition to the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the trial judge barred the expert from testifying under the "net opinion" rule, and granted summary judgment for our client lawyer. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Anne M. Dalena and Maxwell L. Billek

Nafisi and Birko Obtain Dismissal in Breach of Contract and Legal Malpractice Case

Arman Nafisi (Partner-Phoenix) and Leeza Birko (Associate-Phoenix) obtained a dismissal in a breach of contract and legal malpractice suit against Wilson Elser's client, a licensed attorney. During oral arguments, Leeza contended that the language in our client's retainer agreement with the plaintiff specifically limited the scope of engagement. In addition, the plaintiff's allegations were used against him to prove that the restricted scope was exceeded. Arizona's procedural rules allowed for annexing the retainer agreement to the moving papers without requiring the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. The court granted Leeza and Arman's motion to dismiss. The court was further persuaded to dismiss the plaintiff's multitude of other claims as inapplicable, adopting as an issue of first impression the ABA's stance against "shotgun pleadings" and because the claims fell outside the gravamen of the plaintiff's action.

Arman Nafisi

Boone and Mueller Prevail on Motion to Dismiss in Lawyer’s Malpractice Case

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Siobhán A. Mueller (Associate-New York, NY), recently prevailed on a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss in Westchester Supreme Court in a case involving alleged violation of Judiciary Law § 487, fraud and declaratory judgment against our client lawyer and his firm. The clients served as legal expert in an underlying divorce proceeding, and the plaintiff alleged that they made false representations in an affidavit filed with the court as part of an imagined scheme to disparage the plaintiff before the court in connection with a custody hearing. The court agreed with Richard and Siobhán’s arguments, and dismissed the Judiciary Law § 487 claim because “the alleged representations and conduct complained of were well within the bounds of the adversarial proceeding and do not appear to be outrageous or egregious” and, therefore, the plaintiff’s factual allegations did not support a cause of action under the statute. The court further reasoned that “an attorney’s assertion of unfounded allegations, even if made for an improper purpose, does not provide a basis for liability under Judiciary Law 487.” The court also dismissed the fraud claim because the plaintiff failed to allege details “indicating that defendants made a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff's reliance thereon or that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation to his detriment.” The plaintiff, instead, made “conclusory assertion[s] that he reasonably relied on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations.” Lastly, the court dismissed the declaratory judgment claim because the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing the existence of a justiciable controversy. The matter is presently on appeal in the Second Department.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. and Siobhán A. Mueller

Lee and Melvani Receive Summary Judgment Ruling in Legal Malpractice Claim

Matthew Lee (Partner-Washington, DC) and Nicole Melvani (Of Counsel, Washington, DC) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a legal malpractice against the firm’s attorney client. Matt and Nicole argued that the plaintiff – himself a lawyer – was unable, as a matter of law, to prove the “case-within-the-case,” which requires that a legal malpractice plaintiff adduce sufficient evidence proving he would have received a more favorable result in the underlying litigation (in this case the plaintiff was denied a Chapter 7 discharge of his extensive debts due to his having fraudulently transferred his residence to his newlywed wife and himself as tenants by the entirety six months before filing for bankruptcy protection). Even though the prima facie element of causation is an issue ordinarily left for the jury to decide, in this case the Court ruled that reasonable minds could not differ – that plaintiff could not prove a better result, and thus he was unable to prove causation as a matter of law. The plaintiff did not note an appeal of the summary judgment ruling, and that order is now final.

Matthew W. Lee and Nicole T. Melvani

Pieti Granted Summary Judgment in Lieu of Answer in Legal Malpractice Defense

Anthony Pieti (Partner-Detroit, MI) represented two lawyers and their law firm in a legal malpractice action filed by a former client who sought their representation in responding to a cease and desist demand from a physician with whom the plaintiff was romantically involved after meeting online. The plaintiff claimed that our clients committed legal malpractice by failing not only to advise her of a change to the statute of limitations on sexual assault, which she claimed to have alleged against the physician, but also to pursue legal action against the physician. Anthony filed a motion for summary judgment in lieu of an Answer that the alleged malpractice was nonexistent because the change in the statute of limitations was not applicable as there was no sexual assault. He also showed that the alleged malpractice was outside the scope of the limited retainer that the parties entered into for representation as to the cease and desist matter only. Also, since the plaintiff sued her attorneys there was no more attorney-client privilege, and Anthony was able to show through the plaintiff’s own correspondence to our clients that she indicated there was no sexual assault, that she had no proof of sexual assault and that the romantic relationship lasted only three months – years before she approached our clients for representation, at which time the applicable statute of limitations to bring an action other than sexual assault against the physician had expired. The court held oral argument on the motion that lasted for more than an hour and read its opinion from the bench, granting our motion for summary judgment in lieu of an Answer and agreeing with Anthony’s position on each argument. The entire case was dismissed and no appeal was taken by the plaintiff. 

Stone, Manfredi and Jolley Successfully Defend Attorney in Libel/Slander Case

Parks Stone (Partner-Atlanta, GA), Michael Manfredi (Partner-Atlanta, GA) and Eleanor Jolley (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA) prevailed at the Georgia Court of Appeals in a libel and slander case filed against our client defense attorney for comments made to opposing counsel during the course of the underlying litigation. Our client made comments to opposing counsel regarding the nature and extent of the appellant doctor’s services and billing practices. The doctor filed the lawsuit seeking to silence our client by asserting claims for libel and slander. Parks, Michael and Eleanor sought dismissal under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP free speech statute on the grounds the communications were privileged, protected, and made in good faith and in furtherance of a legitimate interest. The trial court agreed in part, finding the communications were protected but not privileged. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision on the grounds the comments were made in furtherance of his clients’ legitimate interests, were limited in scope and occasion, and published only to proper persons. As such, they were considered privileged and protected under Georgia law. The trial court was accordingly ordered to consider on remand our client’s request for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred throughout the defense of the appellant’s claims.

Parks K. Stone, Michael P. Manfredi and Eleanor G. Jolley

Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.

These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site