Skip to content

Selfpos

  • Home
  • European Law
  • Canada Law
  • Internet Law
  • Property Law
  • New York Law
  • More
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Toggle search form
The Collateral Estoppel Trap in Legal Malpractice

The Collateral Estoppel Trap in Legal Malpractice

Posted on June 24, 2025 By rehan.rafique No Comments on The Collateral Estoppel Trap in Legal Malpractice

Meirowitz v Greenberg 2025 NY Slip Op 32124(U) June 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 659363/2024 Judge: Paul A. Goetz demonstrates the dangers of charging liens, litigation over attorney fees and a subsequent legal malpractice case.

“In this legal malpractice action defendants, Segal & Greenberg LLP, Margery Greenberg,
and Sara Hiltzik1 (collectively “S&G Defendants”) move (MS #2), and defendant Dorf Nelson &
Zauderer, separately moves (MS #3) to dismiss the complaint as against them.
Plaintiff alleges 302 causes of action against defendants many of which are not
cognizable causes of action in New York, including the following:

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform the Court of Critical Information

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – Malfeasance

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – Nonfeasance

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – Misfeasance

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Lack of Transparency

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform the Court of Due Process Violations

  1. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Provide Discovery
  2. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Address Frivolous and Procedurally
    Defective Actions
  3. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform the Court of Unauthorized Actions of
    the AFC
  4. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform the Plaintiff and the Court of Critical
    Findings
  5. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Address Ex Parte Communication and
    Challenge Improper Compensation Order
  6. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform the Court of My Son’s Suicide
    Attempts and the Impact of the Custody Schedule Change
  7. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Refusal to Follow Client Directives and Failure to
    Inform the Court
  8. SEVENTHEENTH [sic.] CAUSE OF ACTION – Failure to Inform Plaintiff of Legal
    Rights and Misrepresentation Regarding Marital Assets
  9. EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Pattern of Failure to Preserve the Record
  10. NINETEENTH CASUE [sic.] OF ACTION: Failure to Provide the Complete File, or
    partial file, in a Timely Fashion
  11. TWENTYEENTH [sic.] CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of Attorney-Client Privilege and
    Professional Conduct
  12. TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Failed to Inform me of both a 1028 and 1028
    Hearing
  13. TWENTY FIFTH CASUE [sic.] OF ACTION: Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care in
    Depositions
  14. TWENTY SEVENTH CASUE [sic.] OF ACTION: Ineffective Representation
  15. TWENTY-EIGHT CASUE [sic.] OF ACTION: Lack of Advocacy
  16. TWENTY NINTH CASUE [sic.] OF ACTION: Support of Misleading Article and Quid
    Pro Quo Relationships
  17. Cause of Action Number Thirty-Two: Damages and the Broader Scope and Implications
    of Defendant’s Action

It appears that these causes of action are intended to be different allegations of legal
malpractice and will be addressed as such. To succeed on a claim of legal malpractice “plaintiff
must show that: (1) the attorney was negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate
cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) plaintiff suffered actual damages” (Springs v L&D Law P.C.,
234 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept 2025]).”

“As for the allegations against the S&G Defendants, a claim for legal malpractice is barred
by an “adverse determination in [an allegedly negligent attorney’s] prior action to recover fees
for the rendering of professional services … with regard to the same services” (Kinberg v Garr,
28 AD3d 245, 246 [1st Dept 2006]; John Grace & Co., Inc. v Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, 186
AD2d 15, 20 [1st Dept 1992] “[S]ince the fee claim and the legal malpractice claim arose from
the same transaction, the decision to award fees necessarily included the finding of no
malpractice”]).
Here, by Decision and Order dated March 16, 2023, in the underlying action, the court
granted S&G Defendants’ motion to withdraw, and awarded S&G Defendants a charging lien at
an amount to be determined later (NYSCEF Doc No 24). The hearing was held on April 28,
2023 and plaintiff agreed to a Charging Lien in the amount of $124,100.86 (NYSCEF Doc No 26
at p 5). “Accordingly, plaintiff[‘s] legal malpractice claim[s] based upon the same services at
issue before the fee claim court [are] barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata” (John Grace,
186 AD2d at 20).”

New York Law

Post navigation

Previous Post: Merlin Law Group Expands to Georgia
Next Post: Multiple Proceedings and Abuse of Process

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • A mid-year review of AI and copyright posts
  • Common Corporate Governance Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)
  • Multiple Proceedings and Abuse of Process
  • The Collateral Estoppel Trap in Legal Malpractice
  • Merlin Law Group Expands to Georgia

Copyright © 2025 Selfpos.

Powered by PressBook Blog WordPress theme