Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that an attorney was not liable to a former client whom he represented in a matrimonial action.

Elizabeth Casey sued her former attorney, Curtis Exum, alleging legal negligence and breach of contract arising out of Exum’s representation in a matrimonial action. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s negligence led her to agree to a settlement less favorable than what she would have received as a marital distribution after a trial. The trial court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Affirming, the appellate court found that a defendant seeking summary judgment in a legal negligence case must establish that he or she did not fail to exercise the requisite skill and knowledge and that the claimed departure from the standard of care did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. When the defendant meets that burden, the court found, the plaintiff then has the burden of raising a triable issue of fact. Citing case law, the court added that mere speculation about a loss resulting from an attorney’s alleged misconduct is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case of legal negligence.

Applying these principles, the court found that after the defendant established he was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her claim that her former spouse would have accepted a more favorable settlement offer is merely speculative, the court said.

Citation: Casey v. Exum, 2023 WL 4918620 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 2, 2023).