Blogs

Posts Categorized: Law Firms and Professional Ethics

Posted: June 26, 2019

Client Can Seek to Recoup Fees Paid to Counsel that had an Alleged Conflict of Interest

On June 19, 2019, the Second Department issued a decision in Baugher v. Cullen & Dykman, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op. 04904, holding that a client could assert a claim to recoup fees paid to counsel that had an alleged conflict of interest, explaining: An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for... Read more »

Posted: May 6, 2019

Arbitrator, Not Court, to Decide if Provision of Contract Unenforceable as a Matter of New York Public Policy

On April 22, 2019, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Selendy v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op. 29119, holding that an arbitrator, not the court, should decide whether a contract provision was unenforceable as a matter of New York public policy, explaining: When determining... Read more »

Posted: April 22, 2019

Partnership Tax Returns Were Not Dispositive Evidence of Plaintiff’s Status as a Partner

On April 2, 2019, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Barrison v. D’Amato and Lynch, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op. 30905(U), holdiong that partnership tax returns were not dispositive evidence of a plaintiff’s status as a partner, explaining: Whether partnership status is enjoyed turns on various factors, including sharing... Read more »

Posted: February 14, 2019

A Lawyer’s Failure to Have an Office in New York Does Not Doom Cases Filed by That Lawyer

On February 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Arrowhead Capital Fin., Ltd. v. Cheyne Specialty Fin. Fund L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op. 01124, holding that a lawyer’s failure to have an office in New York does not render void actions filed by that lawyer, explaining: An attorney who is regularly admitted... Read more »

Posted: November 7, 2018

Legal Malpractice Claim Properly Dismissed as Time-Barred

On October 30, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Brean Murray, Carret & Co. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op. 07238, affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim as time-barred, explaining: The malpractice claim was properly dismissed as time-barred, and the doctrine of equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations... Read more »

Posted: September 4, 2018

Documents Submitted by Law Firm to Show Lack of Relationship Not Documentary Evidence Sufficient to Justify Dismissal

On August 22, 2018, The Second Department issued a decision in First Choice Plumbing Corp. v. Miller Law Offs., PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 05825, holding that documents submitted by a law firm to show that it had not been engaged by the plaintiff were not documentary evidence sufficient to justify dismissal, explaining: The defendant... Read more »

Posted: August 23, 2018

Judiciary Law Sec. 487 Claim Dismissed for Failure to Allege Intent to Deceive

On August 15, 2018, the Second Department issued a decision in Bill Birds, Inc. v. Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op. 05743, dismissing a Judiciary Law Section 487 claim for failure to allege intent to deceive, explaining: Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law §... Read more »

Posted: July 18, 2018

Court Refuses to Enforce Attorney Fee-Sharing Agreement

On July 5, 2018, the Second Department issued a decision in Ballan v. Sirota, 2018 NY Slip Op. 05014, affirming the dismissal of a claim to enforce an attorney fee-sharing agreement, explaining: Judiciary Law § 491 prohibits any person, partnership, or corporation from sharing any fee or compensation charged or received by an attorney-at-law, in... Read more »

Posted: April 17, 2018

Continuous Representation Doctrine Applies Only to Representations Specifically Related to the Malpractice Claim

On April 12, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Davis v. Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op. 02542, affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim as time-barred because the continuous representation doctrine does not apply to representations unrelated to the malpractice claim, explaining: Davis cannot rely on the continuous representation... Read more »