Legal Malpractice Law Review : Professional Responsibility Case Summaries & Commentary : Bennett J. Wasserman : LegalMalpractice.com : Lawyer Malpractice & Legal Ethics

Pechko v. Gendelman,  20 A.D.3d 404; 799 N.Y.S.2d 80 (2nd Dept. 2005)

NY Underlying Medical Malpractice Action

Student Contributor: Natalie Resto

Facts: The plaintiff underwent a mammogram while a patient with Doctor #1, who, she claimed, told her that the mammogram was normal. Later that year she underwent a mammogram with Doctor #2 and was diagnosed with cancer. The surgeon recalled seeing in the first mammogram certain “micro-calcifications” that were “suspicious of cancer.” The plaintiff sued Doctor #1 for medical malpractice. During the course of representation, the attorney who was representing her forwarded the mammogram films to a radiologist for evaluation, who before the evaluation misplaced them. The plaintiff then retained an appellate law firm to represent her in the medical malpractice action. Doctor  #1 moved for summary judgment arguing that the films constituted key evidence, and that the loss of that evidence irreparably prejudiced his ability to defend the action. The lower court granted the doctor’s summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to counter the motion with expert affidavits sufficient to create issues of fact. The plaintiff then brought this action against the law firm to recover damages for legal malpractice for failing to properly defend her against the summary judgment motion in the medical malpractice action.  The law firm argued that because it was not responsible for the loss of the mammogram film, which occurred before it was retained, its negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. The law firm moved for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The lower court denied it and the law firm appealed.

Issue: Was the law firm negligent in its representation of the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action?

Ruling: Yes. The court found that the motion was properly denied because the absence of the mammogram films did not require the conclusion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish the law firm’s negligence. Here the firm did not rebut the plaintiff’s claim that they were negligent in failing to obtain secondary evidence concerning the films.

Lesson: Even when a court’s determination in an underlying medical malpractice action may be read as holding that the plaintiff will be unable to establish the merits of the medical malpractice action, that determination should not be given collateral estoppel effect against the plaintiff when he or she has alleged that the determination in the underlying action was the result of his or her attorney’s negligence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alaimo v. McGeorge, 893 N.Y.S.2d 331 (3rd Dept. 2010)

Underlying Personal Injury Action

Facts:  Plaintiffs initiated a pro-se personal injury action in 1999.  In May, 2004, Plaintiffs retained the defendant attorneys to prosecute their claims.  Approximately one month later, Plaintiffs' action was struck for failure to present a medical expert.  Plaintiffs were given one year to restore the case, but failed to timely comply.  Defendants subsequently refunded the retainer and terminated representation. 

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs moved to restore their complaint pro-se.  The Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to present a reasonable excuse for not refiling the personal injury action within the one year time limit.  The Court further noted that the reports from Plaintiffs' medical providers with the motion to reinstate "failed to establish any causal connection between any allegedly improper conduct [and the injuries complained of]."

Plaintiffs subsequently sued the defendant attorneys for legal malpractice.

Issue:  Is Plaintiffs' legal malpractice action barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, since the Court had already made a determination as to the Plaintiffs' inability to succeed in the underlying personal injury matter?  Did Plaintiffs state a cause of action for legal malpractice in light of the Supreme Court's finding that they failed to establish proximate cause?

Ruling:  Plaintiffs stated a cause of action for legal malpractice and the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply. 

The Appellate Division explained the elements of collateral estoppel:

• An identical issue decided in the prior action that is decisive of the instant action; and
• The party to be precluded from relitigating the issue had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination.

The Court ruled that collateral estoppel did not apply, since Plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the case required a showing of merit sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact, and that in that setting conclusory allegations are insufficient.  In contrast, on defendants' motion to dismiss, even conclusory allegations with respect to the medical evidence are deemed to be true.  Accordingly, defendants failed to establish that the showing of proximate cause as to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries was identical in the underlying action and the malpractice action.

Similarly, although the medical evidence may not have been sufficient for purposes of the motion to reinstate the underlying matter, it was entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.   

Lesson:  Where the plaintiff's burden of proof is heavier in the underlying action than in a preliminary motion in the malpractice action, plaintiff's claims will not be barred based upon its failure to meet a heavier burden in the underlying matter.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alevras v. Tacopina, 399 F.Supp.2d 567, (N.J. 2005); 

NJ Underlying criminal action.

Student Contributor: Colleen Gaedcke

Facts: The plaintiff was prosecuted and indicted on various counts of criminal violations in federal criminal court. He was appointed counsel but later retained the defendants to represent him. With the advice of his attorneys the plaintiff accepted an unfavorable plea agreement and began serving his sentence. After the plaintiff entered his guilty plea, he brought a 20 U.S.C. β 2255 motion, pro se, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion was denied by the District Court and the plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit. The District Court held four evidentiary hearings on remand regarding the plaintiff’s motion, but the plaintiff’s petition was denied for a second time and affirmed by the Third Circuit. Then the plaintiff filed a seven count civil complaint against the defendant alleging legal malpractice. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and made a motion for summary judgment.

Issue: Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a criminal defendant from making civil legal malpractice claims for criminal malpractice where claims for ineffective assistance of counsel have been adjudicated, decided and rejected in a 20 U.S.C. β 2255 criminal proceeding?

Ruling: Yes. In granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, the District Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a legal malpractice claim against a criminal defense attorney based on the following reasoning:
1) The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from re-litigating issues that have previously been adjudicated and decided previously by another court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, where the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel has been fully litigated in the post-conviction proceeding, it may not be considered again in a civil proceeding.
2) As a matter of public policy, we cannot allow criminal defendants to re-litigate issues in civil court where the same issue was litigated by a court of competent jurisdiction. To allow otherwise would undermine the effective administration of the judicial system.  

Lesson: A criminal defendant cannot bring a legal malpractice case concerning the quality of his criminal defense counsel when he raised or had a full and fair opportunity to raise the issue  of ineffective assistance of counsel and he knew the facts regarding the attorneys alleged malpractice during the criminal proceedings.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alevras v. Tacopina, 399 F.Supp.2d 567 (D.N.J. 2005)

NJ Underlying criminal action

Student Contributor: Colleen Gaedcke

Facts: The plaintiff was indicted and prosecuted on various counts of criminal violations in federal court. He was appointed counsel, but later retained the defendants to represent him. Upon advice of the defendant attorneys, plaintiff accepted an unfavorable plea agreement and began serving his sentence. At some point thereafter, the plaintiff brought a 20 U.S.C. 2255 motion, pro se, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion was denied by the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and the plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit. The Court held four evidentiary hearings regarding the plaintiff’s motion, but the plaintiff’s petition was denied. The Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the denial. Plaintiff subsequently filed a civil complaint against the defendants alleging legal malpractice. The defendants argued that the legal malpractice claim was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue: Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a criminal defendant from bringing a civil legal malpractice claim after the adjudication of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Ruling: Yes. The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from re-litigating issues that have previously been decided by another court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, where the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel has been fully litigated in the underlying criminal proceeding, it may not be considered again in a civil proceeding under the cloak of a professional negligence claim.

Lesson: New Jersey courts will not allow criminal defendants a second bite at the apple with a civil malpractice complaint after an adjudication on the very same issues in an ineffective assistance of counsel proceeding in the underlying criminal action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link