Plaintiff owned a liquor store. She signed an agreement with another party to sell the store. Later, plaintiff claimed that she did not understand what she had signed. She then attempted to sue the lawyers (Defendant Dunnington) who drafted the documents that she signed. It isn’t clear who the lawyers actually represented, but we can speculate that the Dunnington firm represented the buyer. They drafted an agreement for the sale of the business and the plaintiff signed. One part of her lawsuit to unwind the transaction was a claim for legal malpractice. The defendant law firm Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), (7), and (10) on the ground that they did not represent plaintiff.

Facts: Plaintiff Adel Wine & Liquors is owned by Adelaida Melendez, an elderly woman living in assisted living since 2022 whose sons had been operating the business. The complaint alleges that unknown visitors — later identified as attorney Swetnick (of Dunnington) and Gerard Glass — presented Melendez with documents without explaining their contents and had her sign them. She later claimed she believed the documents effected a lease when they actually effected a sale of the business and transfer of its liquor license.

Key Facts

Humphrey v. Miller and Wells, PLLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2026, not to be published)

Background: This is the third case in a trilogy of litigation stemming from Sherry Humphrey’s dispute over a family trust/estate. In Humphrey I, a declaratory judgment action, an agreed judgment was entered in 2019 (amended 2020). While Humphrey I was pending, Sherry filed a separate suit against the trustee bank (Humphrey II) for breach of fiduciary duty; that case was dismissed because the claims should have been raised as compulsory counterclaims in Humphrey I, and this Court affirmed that dismissal in 2018 (cert denied by the Kentucky Supreme Court later that year).

This is a Rule 23 unpublished order from the Fifth District (filed June 16, 2026) affirming the dismissal of a pro se legal malpractice complaint on statute of limitations and repose grounds. In my experience many legal malpractice claims are barred by the statute of repose. It baffles me that plaintiffs wait so long before considering whether their lawyer made an error in their case.

Underlying facts. Dana Watson hired attorneys Kelly Sullivan and Angel Von Bokel around January 24, 2014, to file a § 1983 civil rights suit arising from a search warrant executed at her home that day. The warrant related to her husband’s criminal case; she sought to recover seized property (a sum of money and a handgun) and to challenge the warrant as illegal and the force used to execute it. Watson alleged the defendants committed malpractice by failing to file the civil rights suit within the limitations period and by otherwise mishandling the matter. She filed her original pro se complaint on August 10, 2022, and ultimately a third amended complaint (Oct. 9, 2024) pleading legal malpractice plus counts for vicarious liability, personal injury, IIED, professional misconduct, and conflict of interest.

Pamela Gale hired the Abramowitz defendants to represent her in post-judgment divorce proceedings, where she was trying to collect her share of profit distributions under a postnuptial agreement. She claims her lawyers botched the job by failing to put into evidence the tax documents her own expert had relied on. Because those documents weren’t in the record, the referee awarded her less than the full amount she was owed. She then had to hire new lawyers, who—after more motion practice and a hearing—won her the full distribution she should have gotten in the first place.

Gale then sued her original lawyers for malpractice, seeking as damages the legal and expert fees she had to spend fixing their mistake. The trial court dismissed her complaint, but on June 2, 2026, the First Department unanimously reversed and reinstated the case.

This is an unpublished Illinois First District Appellate Court decision issued May 12, 2026, reversing a circuit court grant of summary judgment in a legal malpractice case.

Background. Plaintiff Ricky Stewart was injured in 2017 when he fell while working in a Jewel grocery warehouse, suffering a herniated cervical disc that required surgery. He retained attorney Francine Fishel of Brill & Fishel, P.C. to pursue a workers’ compensation claim against Jewel. Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator denied Stewart all benefits, finding he failed to prove both that his injury arose out of his employment and that a causal connection existed between his fall and his injuries. Stewart then sued Fishel for legal malpractice, alleging she committed several critical errors in handling his case.

Harooni v. Law Offices of David S. Lin (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. 2026)

Overview

Background

Plaintiffs Nick Merrifield and Merrifield Machinery Solutions sued ATS Advisors, James Sullivan, and Shane Randell for accounting malpractice and sought to recover attorney fees as an element of their damages. The Oakland Circuit Court dismissed that claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the American rule barred recovery of attorney fees as damages.

Park West Executive Services, Inc. v. Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP

2026 NY Slip Op 00428 | App. Div., 1st Dept. | Decided January 29, 2026

The plaintiff, Juraj Kuzar, sued his former lawyers, Spar & Bernstein, for:

• Legal malpractice