In legal malpractice cases, plaintiff’s counsel will often try to exploit conflict allegations to taint the fact finder’s view of the defendant and to provide a “motive” for the alleged failure of the defendant-attorneys to meet standards of competence and diligence. However, a conflict of interest does not automatically give rise to malpractice liability; plaintiff’s counsel still must establish proximate cause. While proximate cause is often a question of fact, it may be possible to raise certain defenses and negate proximate cause on a motion before trial.
In general, New York case law holds that a conflict of interest does not, standing alone, support a legal malpractice cause of action, even if it is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. See e.g., Sumo Container Station, Inc. v. Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton & Laffan, P.C., 278 A.D.2d 169, 171 (1st Dept. 2000). Thus, when a conflict of interest exists, a plaintiff must still demonstrate that the conflict caused an actual injury. A failure to establish that an attorney’s conduct proximately caused harm requires dismissal of the malpractice action, even if the attorney acted negligently. See e.g., Bauza v. Livington, 40 A.D.3d 791, 793 (2d Dept. 2007).
Legal Malpractice Standard
This content has been archived.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
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]
