On May 14, 2020, a New York State appellate court agreed with a Manhattan Judge that a legal malpractice claim against an attorney who defended a NYC Teacher at a Board of Education license revocation hearing, lacked sufficient proof to proceed to a jury trial. The Teacher lost his license following the hearing for relying on corporal punishment to discipline students. Apparently, the Teacher argued that the attorney failed to raise procedural defenses to the charges which may have invalidated the hearing. The Teacher claimed that "but for" the attorney's malpractice witnesses would have testified at the hearing, he would have been represented by the Union and the hearing would have been invalidated.
The attorney filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that any alleged shortcomings in his representation would not have changed the outcome. The Court noted dismissal of the legal malpractice claim had to be granted because there was no evidence offered to prove: 1) the purported witnesses would have testified favorably and exonerated the Teacher; 2) the Teacher's license wouldn't have been revoked absent a finding he engaged in corporal punishment; 3) that even if the hearing was invalidated, the Board of Education couldn't simply re-file for a de novo hearing to revoke his license. Nash v Druyan, 121 N.Y.S. 3d 862