Legal malpractice trials, which have always been kind of weird, just got weirder. In a case of first impression, the New York Court of Appeals in Grace v. Law recently held that the failure of a plaintiff to appeal an underlying adverse ruling does not bar a subsequent legal malpractice claim, unless the attorney-defendant can prove that plaintiff would have been “likely to succeed” in his appeal.
Say what? What does all this mean?
Let’s say your lawyer messed up your New York personal injury trial. He forgot to call a key witness. The jury found against you. You sue him. His defense? “Hey, maybe I should have called that witness, but if you had only appealed the trial result to the appellate court, maybe you would have won. We’ll never know because you never appealed. Therefore I win because you can’t prove the appellate court wouldn’t have given you a victory.”