You are here: / / Client’s Claim His Attorney Pressured Him Into Changing the Retainer...
,

Client’s Claim His Attorney Pressured Him Into Changing the Retainer Agreement, Thereby Costing the Client More, Did Not Sound In Malpractice and Was Not an Arbitrable Fee Dispute

The First Department noted that an action by a client alleging he was pressured by his attorney into changing the retainer agreement from an hourly retainer to a contingency retainer (thereby costing the client more) did not sound in malpractice and was not arbitrable under part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts:

Plaintiff does not assert that defendants’ conduct caused the result of his dispute with his disability insurer to be worse than it would have been. Rather, he argues that defendants, in bad faith and without full disclosure, pressured him into changing from an hourly retainer to a contingency retainer. The only loss he alleges is the additional fees owed to counsel as a result of changing the retainer. This is fatal to his claim for malpractice … . …

The retainer agreement provided for arbitration under part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. However, the gravamen of the contract claim is that it is invalid because of defendants’ misconduct in inducing plaintiff to sign it, or because it created a windfall for defendants. By the express terms of the rules the parties chose to govern their arbitration, claims such as this are not arbitrable since 22 NYCRR 137.1(b)(3) provides that part 137 does not apply to “claims involving substantial legal questions, including professional malpractice or misconduct” … . Cohen v Hack, 2014 NY Slip Op 04068, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

You might also like
Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident
THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).
UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S DISTRESS SIGNAL, A GROUP OF MEN NEAR THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER YELLING, DEFENDANT’S STRUGGLING WITH THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, DEFENDANT’S BREAKING FREE OF AN OFFICER’S RESTRAINT AND RUNNING, DEFENDANT’S FORCIBLY TAKING PROPERTY FROM THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, AND THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, COMBINED TO JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT; THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY REOPENED THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE REMAINING CHARGES IS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS FLOOR CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE, MARSHALLS, THE RETAIL STORE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED, COULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE MARSHALLS HAS A NONDELGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC AREAS OF ITS STORE SAFE; WHETEHER MARSHALLS HAD NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IS NOT AN ISSUE WHERE VICARIOUS LIABILITY MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY FELL FROM A WET, SLIPPERY WOODEN LADDER; HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION; NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Given the Surrounding Circumstances, the Allegation that the Juvenile Was in... Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain...