Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesattorneymalpracticelegal malpracticeunjust enrichment

plaintiffmalpracticelegal malpracticeunjust enrichment

Related Cases

Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626

Facts

The plaintiffs, heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, engaged Proskauer Rose LLP for tax advice regarding the sale of their J & J stock. They were introduced to a tax minimization strategy by Proskauer attorneys, who assured them that the plan would avoid significant tax liabilities and withstand IRS scrutiny. After executing the strategy, the IRS later challenged it, leading to substantial back taxes and penalties. The plaintiffs alleged that Proskauer had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose its financial ties to the tax strategy provider, TDG.

The plaintiffs, heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, engaged Proskauer Rose LLP for tax advice regarding the sale of their J & J stock.

Issue

Whether the legal malpractice claim was time-barred, and whether the fraud and unjust enrichment claims were duplicative of the malpractice claim.

Rule

The continuous representation doctrine does not toll the limitations period for a legal malpractice claim unless the client is acutely aware of the need for further representation on the specific matter. Claims for fraud and unjust enrichment can survive if they are based on distinct allegations and seek different damages than a malpractice claim.

Analysis

The court found that the continuous representation doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs had not required representation from Proskauer after receiving the opinion letter in June 2001. The fraud claim was deemed independent as it involved allegations of intentional misrepresentation and a failure to disclose the firm's conflict of interest, which were separate from the malpractice claim. The court also noted that the excessive fee and unjust enrichment claims were based on different grounds than the malpractice claim.

The court found that the continuous representation doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs had not required representation from Proskauer after receiving the opinion letter in June 2001.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, allowing the fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing the legal malpractice claim as time-barred.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court allowed their fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, finding that these claims were not duplicative of the legal malpractice claim.

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court allowed their fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C., 265 Ga. 374, 453 S.E.2d 719, 50 A.L.R.5th 839

Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 59 USLW 2041

U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111

Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 132 S.Ct. 912, 181 L.Ed.2d 807, 80 USLW 4086, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 677, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 636, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 86

The Florida Bar v. Ball, 406 So.2d 459