Retainer Agreement Raises Factual Issue On Lawyer's Claim Only Retained to Represent Estate Not Administrator In Personal Capacity
On August 18, 2023, a New York County Supreme Court Justice denied a law firm's motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim. The plaintiff was the Administrator of his father's Estate and claimed that the legal services provided by the attorney's were careless and untimely causing economic losses. The law firm sought dismissal and argued that they were only retained to represent the estate of plaintiff's father and plaintiff as Administrator-not plaintiff, individually. This argument did not sell well. The Court noted that an engagement letter drafted by the law firm stated: Thank you for retaining Holland & Knight to represent you in connection with the administration of your father's estate." The Court also highlighted a subsequent retainer agreement sent to plaintiff: "Thank you for retaining Holland & Knight LLP to represent you individually as a defendant...." The Court also pointed to third document filed and signed by the law firm purporting to represent the plaintiff individually and as heir to his father's Estate.
These documents were not found conclusive on the privity issue but raised questions of fact on the law firm's claim that their was no actual privity (attorney-client) between the plaintiff, as an individual and the law firm. The Court emphasized that these documents "can reasonably create the impression that H & K was first and foremost representing plaintiff's interests." Accordingly, this legal malpractice claim and lack of an attorney-client relationship defense will be decided at trial by a jury. Kadah v Kadah, 2023 NY Slip Op 32889(U), Index No: 152026/2022
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment