Background
Plaintiffs Nick Merrifield and Merrifield Machinery Solutions sued ATS Advisors, James Sullivan, and Shane Randell for accounting malpractice and sought to recover attorney fees as an element of their damages. The Oakland Circuit Court dismissed that claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the American rule barred recovery of attorney fees as damages.
Malpractice cases arising out of litigation matters always involve some sort of claim involving the underlying case. This is one such case where the plaintiff claimed that its lawyers negligently waived a defense it had to an underlying claim. The trial court dismissed the complaint but the Appellate Division reinstated it. Park West is claiming that in the underlying personal injury case its lawyers should have raised the defense that Ms. Rivera was an independent contractor, not an employee. If she was an independent contractor, Park West would not have been liable for the car accident in the underlying case. (We don’t know whether or not this is true. We only know what Park West alleged in its malpractice complaint. The complaint is merely allegations and has not been proven.) Still the case is interesting. If you have a question or suspect you were a victim of malpractice, do not hesitate to call us. Ed Clinton, Jr.
2026 NY Slip Op 00428 | App. Div., 1st Dept. | Decided January 29, 2026
Kuzar v. Spar & Bernstein, 2026 NY Slip OP 50173, is a decision dismissing a legal malpractice action on the ground that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show that, but for the lawyer’s alleged error, the plaintiff would have won the underlying case.
The plaintiff, Juraj Kuzar, sued his former lawyers, Spar & Bernstein, for:
This is a YouTube video of a presentation on how to avoid malpractice claims in litigation.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 17, 2026 Outcome: Disbarment
Leonard Slodov, a homeowner and former treasurer of Eagle Ridge Subdivision homeowners association, sued the law firm Ott & Associates for legal malpractice. Slodov had served on the association’s board for 12 years until allegedly being improperly removed in 2021. After his removal, Ott & Associates (representing the association) filed a lien and foreclosure action against Slodov for unpaid dues. Slodov then filed this malpractice suit both individually and purportedly on behalf of the association.
The opinion sets out the key facts in these two paragraphs:
Campbell v. Law offices of Solomon Rosengarten, 241 A.D.3d 771 (2025), 238 N.Y.S.3d 679, 2025 NY Slip Op 04700, is a decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reinstating a legal malpractice claim that the trial court had dismissed as time-barred. The explanation:
In 2016, Campbell executed a consent to change attorneys form and filed it in the Supreme Court, Kings County. Campbell then moved in the Supreme Court to restore the action to the active calendar, for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and for leave to file a note of issue. In an order dated November 22, 2017, the motion was denied without prejudice to refile in the Civil Court, Kings County. Campbell then moved in the Civil Court to restore the action to the active calendar and for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In an order dated December 10, 2019, the Civil Court denied the motion (hereinafter the Civil Court order).
In January 2020, Campbell commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice. The defendants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice as time-barred. In an order dated May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion. Campbell appeals.
https://www.lawline.com/course/avoiding-legal-malpractice-claims-in-litigation-update
If you have questions about a potential malpractice claim, fill out the form on our website with details of your case.
Ed Clinton, Jr.
In a legal malpractice case, the plaintiff must (almost always) present the testimony of a legal malpractice expert to opine on the standard of care. Experts can be expensive, but requiring an expert forces the plaintiff to hire one anyway. Without an expert on the standard of care, the case will be dismissed. In Vose v. Tang and Maravelis, PC, D. Rhode Island, the plaintiff argued that the jurors could rely on their common knowledge as a substitute for expert testimony. The court disagreed and dismissed the case.
To Mr. Vose’s first point, jurors could not merely rely on their common knowledge to determine whether Defendants committed malpractice. For example, Mr. Vose does not allege that Defendants failed to file a suit within the appropriate statute of limitations period or failed to inform him of a settlement offer—situations where negligence would be “clear and palpable.” Cronan, 972 A.2d at 173 (citations omitted). Rather, Mr. Vose’s malpractice allegations concern assertions that Defendants failed to: (1) impeach a witness; (2) call various witnesses; (3) present expert medical testimony; (4) file certain motions; (5) demonstrate adequate knowledge of the applicable law; (6) introduce evidence of impropriety by the police and others; (7) maintain his innocence; and (8) properly object to certain evidence. See ECF No. 94 at 4-34. These allegations implicate Defendants’ application of their legal expertise when representing Mr. Vose in his criminal matters. Accordingly, expert evidence is required to establish the standard of care applicable to an attorney in Attorney Goldberg’s position. See Focus Inv. Assocs., Inc., 992 F.2d at 1240 (affirming district court’s determination that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care because the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim implicated issues of the defendant-attorney’s application of legal expertise)….
Without expert testimony, Mr. Vose is unable make a showing sufficient to establish the appropriate standard of care—an essential element of his legal malpractice claims. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 89, and DENIES Mr. Vose’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 75. The Court also DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 79, as moot.
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog