A jury’s verdict that a highly regarded environmental law firm did not commit legal malpractice in regard to a pair of ex-clients’ potential property-damage insurance claim “rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence,” a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Upholding a decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan that came months after an eight-day 2018 malpractice trial involving the law firm Sive, Paget & Riesel, an Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote that “the jury heard significant evidence about the standard of care an attorney owes to a client, including the information and explanations that an attorney should give to clients about submitting claims to their insurer.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]