.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Court agrees with application of the first-injury rule because the related bankruptcy case would not determine whether the defendant committed legal malpractice.

Mikhaylov v. Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, 346 So. 3d 224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

January 1, 2023

A former client filed a lawsuit against Bilzin Sumberg, asserting causes of action for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The claims were dismissed as the trial court determined the two-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims runs when the client initially suffers concrete loss as a proximate cause of the alleged malpractice. The client appealed.

Specifically, the plaintiff was involved in a real estate development project with another individual. He retained Bilzin Sumberg to provide legal guidance. The business relationship eventually went south, and the plaintiff alleged that the other individual was aided by Bilzin Sumberg in manipulating him to sign documents and remove him from the partnership and trust between 2015 and 2017. This lawsuit was initiated in February 2020 and argued that Bilzin Sumberg, as the plaintiff’s counsel did not protect his interests. Bilzin Sumberg filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the statute of limitations had expired. The motion to dismiss was granted.

On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reviewed whether the plaintiff was correct in that the trial court erred in applying the first-injury rule to this transactional legal malpractice case and should, instead, apply the finality accrual rule. The district court agreed with the trial court’s application of the first-injury rule because the related bankruptcy case in this matter would not determine whether Bilzin Sumberg committed malpractice. Rather, it would only have the effect of potentially reducing the damages alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had alleged suffering economic loss more than two years prior to the filing of this February 2020 case. Accordingly, the fact that the bankruptcy case may recover some, or all, of those losses was irrelevant. Thus, the trial court’s order on the motion to dismiss was affirmed.

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.