On April 18, 2019 an appellate court covering Manhattan ruled that a pro se plaintiff's claims of excessive billing, churning and redundant charges to proceed to trial. The law firm sued had been provided a draft of a complaint by the law firm and was paid $25,000. The plaintiff claimed the law firm produced only another "draft complaint that was essentially identical to the one that she had presented to them" and then demanded another $10,000. Even worse, the plaintiff claimed the attorney's failed to file suit within the statute of limitations costing her a recovery estimated at $500,000.

In rejecting the defendant's motion to dismiss the Appellate Division, First Department noted the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the law firm's fee "bore no rational relationship to the product delivered" having made few if any changes to the draft complaint she provided to the law firm. Cascardo v Joshua L. Dratel, P.C., 2019 WL 1715149