January 24, 2011 | New York Law Journal
Legal Malpractice, Retaining and Charging LiensAndrew Lavoott Bluestone writes that here is no subject closer to the hearts of attorneys, and no subject that engenders as much litigation, as the interplay of legal malpractice claims and attorney' fees.
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
11 minute read
July 18, 2006 | New York Law Journal
The Collateral Estoppel Trap in Legal MalpracticeAndrew Lavoott Bluestone, a New York City sole practitioner, discusses the quirky and under-examined interplay between attorney fee disputes and collateral estoppel of a subsequent legal malpractice lawsuit, along with ways to avoid an unintentional loss of rights.
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
11 minute read
January 03, 2006 | Law.com
Deposing Attorneys as Experts in Their Own CasesDeposing an attorney is never easy, but it can be especially challenging when that attorney is also a defendant in the case. Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, a solo practitioner concentrating in legal malpractice litigation, describes the statutory basis for deposing an attorney-defendant as an expert, the parameters of such questioning and the use to which the deposition may be put.
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
11 minute read
December 08, 2006 | New York Law Journal
Statute of Limitations in Legal MalpracticeAndrew Lavoott Bluestone, a New York City sole practitioner, writes that few actions require the complexity of analysis of legal malpractice in calculating the statute. To begin, it is not always clear when the clock begins to run. Several considerations govern when the statute starts. These include the date of the malpractice, continuing representation, and the maturing of an actionable injury. To further complicate the analysis there are equitable tolling and equitable estoppel.
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
10 minute read
January 27, 2010 | New York Law Journal
Settlements and Subsequent Legal MalpracticeAndrew Lavoott Bluestone, a sole practitioner, writes that recently, one Appellate Division case and two Supreme Court cases have challenged the "effectively compelled" principle - that legal malpractice claims are viable even after a settlement in the underlying action if that settlement was effectively compelled by counsel's mistakes - and in effect, turned it on its head.
By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
11 minute read