Opinion ID: 2351539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Letter of July 15, 1991 and the Commencement of Suit against Prudential

Text: The July 15, 1991 denial letter from Prudential attorney Joseph W. Baglini was likewise insufficient to provide plaintiff with any indication of potential malpractice. Although the letter clearly outlined the specific reasons for Prudential's rejection of plaintiff's claim, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that plaintiff received a copy of the communication or ever was advised of its contents. This inference is buttressed by defendants' interoffice memo dated February 1993 regarding James Canavan  Possible Malpractice Claim, in which defendant attorneys reviewed the potential malpractice exposure. Significantly, even though the memo specifically outlines the circumstances of the malpractice, it is silent as to any intention to notify plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff testified under oath in an affidavit that he was unaware of the potential malpractice claim until January 1996, when a named partner in the firm informed plaintiff that there was a conflict in the case and that as a consequence defendant firm no longer could represent him. Because defendants offered no evidence that plaintiff received either a copy or any notification about the contents of the denial letter of July 15, we are also unable to conclude that the commencement of plaintiff's lawsuit against Prudential was sufficient to put plaintiff on notice of any negligence on the part of his lawyers. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there is no indication that plaintiff had a satisfactory knowledge of the basis of the claim from which he could have inferred any actionable shortcomings by his attorneys. Also, there is no evidence that plaintiff knew that his action against Prudential was in any way connected to negligent conduct by his lawyers. [5] Drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiff, the interoffice memo also suggests that Canavan actually may have been shielded from the real reasons behind Prudential's denial of his claim.