Legal Malpractice Lawyer NYC: Law School Negligence Case

A promising student, “Alex,” enrolled at a respected New York City law school with the clear intention of sitting for the New York State Bar Examination upon graduation.

Alex's eligibility was complex due to an unconventional undergraduate curriculum, requiring careful course selection to meet the stringent requirements of the New York Court of Appeals Rules for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law (22 NYCRR Part 520).

Alex proactively sought guidance from the law school's academic advising office, which was staffed by licensed attorneys, and received a detailed course plan that was explicitly approved as meeting all New York bar eligibility criteria.

Relying entirely on this official advice, Alex successfully completed the approved curriculum and graduated, only to be informed by the New York State Board of Law Examiners that the coursework was deficient and Alex was ineligible to take the bar exam.

This discovery rendered years of effort and significant financial investment worthless, prompting Alex to seek counsel from a top legal malpractice lawyer NYC to explore legal recourse.
 

The foundation of the lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of New York County, was the argument that the law school had a special relationship with its students that created a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing accurate information regarding licensure requirements.

This duty extended beyond general education to providing accurate administrative and professional guidance, especially concerning licensure, a core purpose of attending law school.

SJKP's legal malpractice lawyer NYC team argued that when a school establishes a formal advising system staffed by licensed attorneys to provide specific bar eligibility guidance, it assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care in delivering accurate information.

The legal team contended that this duty was breached when the school's designated advisors failed to exercise reasonable care in interpreting and applying the rules found in 22 NYCRR Part 520.

This argument framed the issue not as a failure to educate but as a case of negligent misrepresentation, a more viable cause of action that a qualified legal malpractice lawyer NYC can effectively pursue.
 

To prove negligence, SJKP's attorneys meticulously documented every interaction between Alex and the advising office, including emails and signed curriculum plans.

This evidence clearly demonstrated that the school provided explicit, incorrect information and that Alex’s reliance on this information was both reasonable and foreseeable.

Damages were calculated to include not only the full cost of tuition and related expenses but also the significant loss of expected income for the years Alex was delayed from entering the legal profession.

A legal malpractice lawyer NYC must be adept at quantifying these multifaceted damages to ensure the client can be made whole.

The firm also asserted claims for consequential damages arising from reputational harm and emotional distress to the extent recoverable under New York law.
 

SJKP’s legal malpractice lawyer NYC team successfully countered the motion to dismiss by focusing on the specific, factual nature of the misrepresentation.

The argument was that Alex did not challenge the quality of the teaching but the accuracy of a verifiable fact provided by the school’s professional staff.

The court agreed, denying the motion to dismiss and allowing the case to proceed, recognizing that a law school's duty may extend to providing accurate information about professional licensing when it establishes a formal advising system for that purpose.

Faced with a trial and the prospect of a damaging public verdict, the law school agreed to enter into settlement negotiations.

Through assertive negotiation, the legal malpractice lawyer NYC at SJKP secured a confidential settlement that provided Alex with substantial compensation covering tuition, lost earnings, and other damages, allowing Alex to pursue the necessary additional coursework and resume the path to a legal career.
 

The court’s denial of the motion to dismiss signaled that while courts will not second-guess academic standards, they may hold institutions accountable for administrative negligence that causes tangible harm to students.

The decision reinforces that providing information about bar eligibility can constitute a critical administrative function rather than an academic judgment.

The case highlights the potential exposure schools face when their advising systems fail to meet reasonable standards of care.

When such duties are breached, a legal malpractice lawyer NYC can evaluate the available claims and pursue appropriate remedies.

If your career has been impacted by incorrect advice or negligence from a professional institution, you may have a valid claim.

The attorneys at SJKP have experience handling complex cases involving professional negligence and misrepresentation.

Our team can help you understand your rights and explore your legal options.

Contact SJKP for a consultation to determine how a skilled legal malpractice lawyer NYC can assist you.