Barnett v. Schwartz, 47 A.D.3d 197, 848 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2007)

Brief Summary
The court upheld a proximate/substantial cause jury instruction to assess damages for legal malpractice.

Complete Summary
Plaintiffs-clients sued defendants-attorneys, Schwartz et al. (“Schwartz”), for malpractice based on Schwartz’s advice regarding a lease agreement. In 1992 plaintiffs entered a lease agreement for land that, two years earlier, had been designated a hazardous waste site. Before plaintiffs signed the lease, Schwartz asked state and federal agencies about the environmental status of the property. Even though he received no response, Schwartz advised plaintiffs to sign the lease. The parties were in dispute about whether plaintiffs had pre-lease knowledge of the environmental issues. The parties were also in dispute about whether Schwartz had discussed with plaintiffs the legal repercussions of leasing the land “as is.” Plaintiffs’ plans for use of the property were delayed by the environmental issues.

At trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs damages. Schwartz appealed arguing, inter alia, that the trial court applied the wrong standard of causation. The trial court had instructed the jury to assess whether, in the court’s words, “defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause (i.e. a substantial cause) of damages.” Id. at 203. Defendant argued for a “but for” standard or for an instruction that the negligence had to be the cause of the injury. Id.

Previous New York malpractice cases had variously required attorney negligence to: directly result in damages; be “a” proximate cause of damages; or be “the” proximate cause of damages. The court held that substantial cause would generally suffice since, among other things, a sole cause standard would eliminate the possibility of contributory negligence.

The court also modified the trial court’s award by giving plaintiffs prejudgment interest from the date that the malpractice cause of action arose.

Significance of Opinion
While the opinion may not be wholly clear in all respects, it does hold that the standard of causation for attorney malpractice in New York is no different than the standard in most, if not all, other negligence actions.

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.

Save the Date!!! for the 8th Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference

March 4- 6, 2009

Westin Chicago River North Hotel
320 North Dearborn
Chicago

The full conference schedule will be published this Fall. For additional information at this time, please visit the conference website at www.lmrm.com