Conventional wisdom dictates that a lawyer being sued for legal malpractice in New York will rarely win a motion to dismiss based on lack of causation. Nevertheless, the case law suggests that a motion challenging a plaintiff’s proximate cause allegations can be a powerful tool.

New York courts have shown a consistent willingness to dismiss malpractice claims where a plaintiff impermissibly speculates about the causal link between a lawyer’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s damages. In addition, challenging causation allegations on a motion to dismiss can have collateral benefits, such as crystallizing issues for discovery or forcing a plaintiff to commit to a specific causation theory early in the case.