Anu Allen v. Christopher Thompson, Esq.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department modified an order denying summary judgment in a legal malpractice action against an attorney. It held that the defendant failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the malpractice claim and failed to show that the contract claim was duplicative, but dismissed the contract claim to the extent it sought damages arising from the unsealing of a federal case because that result was caused by an intervening event. The court also denied attorney's fees because no legal basis for such an award was identified.

Holdings

1. Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because he failed to establish prima facie that he performed with the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge of the legal profession or that his alleged departure did not proximately cause plaintiff's damages.
2. Defendant could not obtain summary judgment merely by identifying an alleged gap in plaintiff's proof, and expert testimony was not necessarily required because ordinary experience could provide a sufficient basis for evaluating the alleged professional misconduct.
3. Defendant failed to establish that the breach-of-contract claim was duplicative because plaintiff alleged specific promises to negotiate with her former employer and obtain sealing of the federal action.
4. Defendant could not be liable for breach-of-contract damages arising from the unsealing because the unsealing resulted from an intervening cause—the third party's First Amendment access motion and the federal court's order requiring public access.
5. Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because she identified no statute, agreement, or court rule authorizing an award in the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice claim based on the absence of an expert opinion.
2. Whether expert testimony was required to establish the alleged legal malpractice and proximate causation on the record presented.
3. Whether defendant established that the breach-of-contract claim was duplicative of the legal malpractice claim.
4. Whether defendant could be liable for breach-of-contract damages arising from the unsealing of the federal action.
5. Whether plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed