A Jan. 11 ruling by a New York appellate panel will give a law firm a chance to prove that a client’s frugality—and not negligent lawyering—was the cause of an alleged $85 million loss in a loan deal that went south.
The decision reversed a summary judgment order against Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane LLC in a malpractice case that illustrates the need to carefully document limited-scope client engagements.
“In order for Gilbride to limit the scope of its representation, it had a duty to ensure that Genesis understood the limits of its representation.”
New York Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dep’t
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.