Allegations in a legal malpractice suit that a lawyer failed to obtain discovery in a timely manner are not so readily apparent that the plaintiff is exempt from obtaining expert testimony on proximate cause, the Appellate Division ruled Friday.
The appeals court affirmed dismissal of a malpractice suit filed against a matrimonial lawyer in connection with the divorce of two other lawyers. Cathy Mitchell, who was represented by Gerald Skey in her divorce case, claimed he was negligent for failing to obtain bank records and billing records from her former husband, Richard Miller, in a timely manner and for failing to depose Miller until a week before trial. She also claimed Skey had a conflict of interest by continuing to represent her after she told him she intended to sue him for malpractice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
