Justice Eileen Bransten
Plaintiff Bayit Care Corp. entered into a franchise agreement under which Bayit, as franchisee, managed a healthcare center and paid the cost of administrative personnel. The franchisor employed and paid the healthcare personnel, and coordinated billing and collection from customers of the center. A litigation asserting legal malpractice stemmed from the alleged failure of defendant law firm, Einbinder & Dunn LLP, and defendant lawyer Einbinder to take certain actions with respect to the renewal of Bayit’s franchise. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint as to plaintiff Schreier, who is the 50 percent co-owner of Bayit, as well as its president and on-site manager. Defendants argued the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for legal malpractice because there was no privity between Schreier and defendants, therefore, Schreier lacks standing. The court denied the motion, determining that both the language of the retainer agreements and defendants’ conduct are sufficiently ambiguous as to create an issue of fact regarding the identity of the defendants’ client. The court added that Schreier’s use of the suffix “President” does not resolve as a matter of law the issue of attorney-client relationship between Schreier and defendants.
