Attorney’s Failure to Investigate Client’s Premises Liability Claim Before Encouraging Settlement Raised Issue of Fact About Malpractice
In this legal malpractice action, the trial court ruled plaintiff had raised issues of fact concerning whether his attorney failed to adequately investigate the plaintiff’s premises liability claim before encouraging the plaintiff to settle. In affirming the trial court, the First Department noted that the settlement agreement did not bar the legal malpractice action:
For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, “a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” …. A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed “settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” …. * * *
In this specific case, given plaintiff’s lack of sophistication and his limited education, defendant’s statement that he never conducted any investigation, except for speaking to plaintiff for a very limited time, raises a question of fact as to whether defendant adequately informed himself about the facts of the case before he conveyed the settlement offer. Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 02454, 8925, 100091/09, 1st Dept, 4-11-13