Cynthia Dimond hired Sherwood Allen Salvan to sue her former lawyer for malpractice after a judge dismissed her personal-injury case.
When her malpractice case also got dismissed, Dimond sued Salvan for malpractice--claiming he should have advanced a bunch of theories (rather than the one he used).
After the New York County Supreme Court threw out the case brought against Salvan, Dimond appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which was of the view that selecting a single course of action didn't constitute malpractice.
(The AD1 disregarded the testimony offered by Dimond's expert, since it's the court's role to decide whether an attorney has deviated from the governing standards and practices.)
How would you appraise that?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Dimond v. Silva