Justice Joan Madden
Client Savitsky moved for summary judgment in this action for legal malpractice against former attorney LeCrichia. Savitsky alleged LeCrichia failed to properly plead allegations of fraud in an underlying case, and failed to negotiate with debtors of the underlying judgment or orally argue an appeal of a December 2005 order. LeCrichia contended Savitsky could not show any damages, noting that as the underlying judgment was for $90,000, but Savitsky ultimately recovered $118,500. Also, LeCrichia noted the parties’ retainer agreement showed that he had no obligation to perform appellate work, claiming as his alleged malpractice accrued during his work on the underlying case, Savitsky’s complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court disagreed finding LeCrichia failed to show that a toll for continuous representation was inapplicable, denying dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. Yet, it stated Savitsky failed to proffer an expert affidavit that LeCrichia failed to perform in a professionally competent manner, or present evidence of actual harm as a result of the malpractice, rather than mere speculative damages, noting an error in judgment did not rise to the level of malpractice. Thus, summary judgment was denied.
