Alerts

Malpractice Liability Precluded by Dismissal of Underlying Claims Against Co-Defendant

December 11, 2007

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert

Salvatore v. Kumar, ___N.Y.S.2d ___, 2007 WL 3307778 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2007).

Brief Summary
A law firm is not liable to a former client for allegedly causing the client to be wrongfully terminated by the client’s employer where, as here, the client was not wrongfully terminated or otherwise tortuously injured by the former employer.

Complete Summary
Plaintiff Irene Salvatore sued her former employer Computer Associates (CA), alleging multiple causes of action including wrongful termination. A co-defendant in the suit, law firm Kaye Scholer, had represented Ms. Salvatore during a CA internal investigation that preceded the termination at issue. Against the law firm, Ms. Salvatore alleged that her injuries, including termination, were caused by the firm’s breach of fiduciary duty and failure to inform. The trial court dismissed the underlying causes of action against CA for failure to allege sufficient facts but allowed the claims against Kaye Scholer to continue.

Ms. Salvatore claimed that Kaye Scholer failed to adequately advise her during the investigation, and that Kaye Scholer failed to disclose a conflict of interest based on CA paying her legal fees. Ms. Salvatore claimed that these breaches of duty had proximately caused, inter alia, her wrongful termination.

Defendants CA and Kaye Scholer moved to dismiss Ms. Salvatore’s causes of action for failure to allege sufficient facts. The trial court dismissed the causes of action against CA but found that Ms. Salvatore had alleged sufficient facts to support a legal malpractice claim. The Appellate Division reversed, stating:

With the dismissal of those causes [of] action [against CA], the plaintiff Salvatore cannot allege that “but for” Kaye Scholer’s . . . alleged legal malpractice, Salvatore was wrongfully terminated . . . and, therefore, cannot allege a legally cognizable injury.

Salvatore, ___2007 WL 3307778 at *4.

Significance of Opinion
This opinion reflects a creative use of the “case within a case” methodology that is a traditional part of legal malpractice claims analysis.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.