Practice point: The defendant law firm was entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law, by demonstrating that its recommendation that plaintiffs execute a consent agreement was a reasonable strategic decision. Defendant also demonstrated that the recommendation was made after extensive discussions with the plaintiffs, who agreed to the course of action. In opposition, the plaintiffs raised no issue of triable fact that the recommendation was an unreasonable course of action that constituted legal malpractice.
Student note: As a matter of law, a client's present dissatisfaction with a lawyer's strategic choice, without more, is not actionable.
Case: Tantleff v. Kestenbaum & Mark, NY Slip Op 06720 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Preclusion of testimony as cumulative.