Defending Malpractice Claims Based On Trial Decisions - The Attorney-Judgment Rule

Perhaps more than any other area of legal practice, trial work often involves instantaneous decisions. When a trial outcome is less than favorable, those on-the-spot judgment calls may be second-guessed by an unhappy client, sometimes leading to a legal malpractice claim. One potentially available defense is the Attorney-Judgment Rule. While its formulation may vary among states, this rule generally provides that the standard of care is not breached if a lawyer chooses one of several reasonable options—even if the path chosen does not prove to be the best one. See, e.g., Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 337 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating that an "error of judgment or a selection of one among several reasonable courses of action" does not establish a malpractice claim); accord Joseph DelGreco & Co. v. DLA Piper L.L.P. (U.S.), 899 F. Supp. 2d 268, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[W]here a claim of legal malpractice is based upon . . . a defendant-attorney's