The attorney judgment rule essentially provides a lawyer with a defense to a malpractice action where the lawyer made a judgment call among one of several reasonable alternatives. The classic example would be to recommend a client plead guilty to a crime or for a criminal defendant not to testify at trial. Either choice (plead guilty or go to trial) may be a reasonable decision and the lawyer should not be punished for choosing one alternative among several options. A baseball analogy would be the manager’s decision to intentionally walk the other team’s cleanup hitter or to pitch to the hitter. Either choice is reasonable. The manager may get burned with an intentional walk if the next batter gets a hit or badly burned if the next hitter hits a home run. On the other hand, after the intentional walk, the next hitter may ground into a double play and the inning may end. No one should second guess the manager because either decision was reasonable.
In the case of Springs v. L&D Law PC, 2025 NY Slip Op 32, Springs sued his lawyers alleging that they committed malpractice by failing to properly amend his complaint in an underlying retaliatory discharge action, which was dismissed. The lawyer defended on the ground that he made a reasonable choice to amend the complaint in response to a motion to dismiss, which was ultimately unsuccessful. The court rejected the application of the attorney judgment defense for these reasons:
“Supreme Court correctly declined to find that the professional judgment rule protected defendants from liability. Pursuant to the professional judgment rule, an attorney’s “selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice” (Rosner v. Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]). Defendants maintain that their decision to amend the complaint in an attempt to moot the 2019 motion to dismiss instead of opposing the motion on its merits was a reasonable strategic choice that is protected by the professional judgment rule. However, plaintiff’s allegations are that defendants failed to submit a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss and instead filed a deficient amended complaint that failed to state that there was a causal connection between plaintiff’s decision to file an EEOC complaint and the 2017 Action and the adverse treatment he suffered. At this juncture, the professional judgment rule is not available as a defense because the record does not allow us to make a determination that defendants’ course of conduct was reasonable as a matter of law (see Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v. Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437, 439 [1st Dept 2010]). Absent a finding that the attorney’s courses of conduct were reasonable as a matter of a law, a determination that a course of conduct constitutes malpractice requires findings of fact (see Bernstein v. Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430[1st Dept 1990]).”
The court affirmed the decision to deny the motion to dismiss on that ground. That means that the legal malpractice case can go forward.
The court also ruled that the failure to file a motion to reconsider the final judgment in the underlying case was not malpractice because the plaintiff could have hired another lawyer to do that and to appeal.
This case is a good example of the limitations of the attorney judgment defense.
If you have a question about a legal malpractice issue, contact us and we will do our best to consider the issue you have presented.
Ed Clinton, Jr.