DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF NEW YORK

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, New York ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of New York

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Professional / Firm Name]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Service: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s) and License Type]
Matter/Project: [Description]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional/Firm Name] in [his/her/their] provision of [type of professional services] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. NEW YORK-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Professional malpractice claims in New York are governed by common law negligence principles and CPLR Section 214(6). Key precedents include Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438 (2007) and Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535 (1994).

B. Statute of Limitations

Professional Malpractice: Under CPLR Section 214(6), actions for professional malpractice must be commenced within three (3) years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim.

Continuous Representation Doctrine: The limitations period is tolled during the period of continuous representation by the same professional on the same matter. Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164 (2001).

Legal Malpractice: The statute runs from the date of the negligent act, but may be tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295 (2002).

Contract vs. Tort: If the claim sounds in breach of contract, a six-year limitations period under CPLR Section 213(2) may apply. Courts will look to the gravamen of the complaint.

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent services: [Date(s)]
- Date representation ended: [Date]
- Three-year limitations period expires: [Date]

C. Comparative Negligence

New York follows a pure comparative negligence system under CPLR Section 1411. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, but the plaintiff may still recover even if they are more at fault than the defendant.

D. Standard of Care Under New York Law

Under New York law, a professional must exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of that profession. Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438 (2007).

Key Case Law:

• Attorneys: Must exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession. Rudolf v. Shayne, 8 N.Y.3d 438 (2007).
• Accountants: Must adhere to GAAP and GAAS standards and exercise reasonable professional care. Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535 (1994).
• Engineers/Architects: Must exercise the skill and care customarily used by practitioners in the profession. Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540 (1992).

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is generally required in professional malpractice cases to establish:
1. The applicable standard of care;
2. That the defendant breached that standard; and
3. That the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.

Darby & Darby, P.C. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 308 (2000).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required when the professional's negligence is obvious to a layperson.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant documents and has concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached and that such breach proximately caused our client's damages.

F. Damage Caps

New York does not impose statutory caps on damages in professional malpractice cases. Punitive damages may be available for egregious conduct.

G. Privity and Third-Party Claims

Legal Malpractice: Generally requires an attorney-client relationship or privity. Estate of Schneider v. Finmann, 15 N.Y.3d 306 (2010) (limited exception for estate beneficiaries).

Accountant Malpractice: Third parties may recover under the Credit Alliance test: (1) awareness that reports were to be used for a particular purpose; (2) reliance by a known party in furtherance of that purpose; and (3) conduct linking the accountant to that party demonstrating understanding of reliance. Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536 (1985).

H. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

New York recognizes breach of fiduciary duty as a separate cause of action. Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 A.D.3d 1 (1st Dep't 2008). Professionals who occupy positions of trust owe fiduciary duties to their clients.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to services provided to [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete client file (paper and electronic)
• All correspondence and communications
• Work product, drafts, and notes
• Billing records and time entries
• Engagement letters and contracts
• Emails and electronic communications
• Calendar entries and scheduling records
• Internal memoranda and analysis
• Research materials
• Any recorded statements
• Professional liability insurance policies
• Quality control and review documentation

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under New York law. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement and Relationship

[Client Name] engaged [Professional/Firm Name] on or about [Date] to provide [type of professional services]:

Nature of Engagement:
- [Description of services to be provided]
- [Scope of representation/engagement]
- [Key objectives]

Fee Arrangement:
- [Description of fee arrangement]
- [Total fees paid: $Amount]

B. Chronology of Negligent Services

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Professional Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the professional(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under New York law, [Defendant Professional] was required to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the [profession type] profession.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Defendant] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed/certified] [profession] with [number] years of experience in [relevant area]. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

1. [Defendant Professional] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a direct and proximate cause of [Client Name]'s damages; and
3. Had appropriate professional services been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

V. CAUSATION

A. "But For" Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the damages described herein. This claim satisfies the "but for" test for actual causation.

B. Proximate Causation

The defendant's professional negligence was a proximate cause of our client's damages. The harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.

C. Case-Within-A-Case (If Applicable to Legal Malpractice)

[If legal malpractice:] We are prepared to prove that but for counsel's negligence, the underlying matter would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for our client. Rudolf v. Shayne, 8 N.Y.3d 438 (2007).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's professional negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Damages:
- [Loss 1]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 2]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 3]: $[Amount]

B. Consequential Damages

C. Professional Fees Paid

D. Interest and Incidental Costs

• Prejudgment interest at 9% per annum per CPLR Section 5004
• Court costs and filing fees
• Expert witness fees

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of professional standards, the extent of our client's damages, and the strength of liability evidence, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Consent to extend statute of limitations during settlement discussions

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement agreement/retainer
• Correspondence between client and professional
• Work product demonstrating errors
• Documentation of damages
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Chronology of events

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional negligence that caused significant financial harm to our client. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care required of [profession type] in New York.

We are prepared to litigate this matter in [Supreme Court, County of _____ / Commercial Division] if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
New York Attorney Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

NEW YORK PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Three-Year Limitations Period: Actions must be brought within 3 years from the act or omission.

• Continuous Representation Doctrine: Tolls limitations during ongoing representation on the same matter.

• Pure Comparative Fault: Plaintiff may recover regardless of percentage of fault (damages reduced proportionally).

• Expert Testimony Required: Expert witness is generally necessary except for obvious negligence.

• No Damage Caps: No statutory limits on professional malpractice damages.

• Prejudgment Interest: 9% per annum per CPLR Section 5004.

• Venue: Supreme Court in county where cause of action arose or where party resides.

• Commercial Division: Complex commercial cases may be assigned to the Commercial Division.

• Credit Alliance Test: Restrictive standard for third-party accountant malpractice claims.

• Punitive Damages: Available for egregious conduct but rare in professional malpractice cases.

This template is specific to New York law. Professional malpractice claims require careful attention to limitations periods and the continuous representation doctrine. Always verify current law and consult with qualified New York counsel.