Plaintiff’s legal malpractice complaint was based upon the incorrect premise that FKB’s clients “defaulted” in the underlying foreclosure action. In actuality, FKB’s clients filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, answered, and attempted to negotiate a loan modification. After the bank moved for summary judgment for foreclosure, FKB’s clients advised Plaintiff of the need to oppose the motion, but that she needed to make arrangements to pay outstanding legal fees. Unwilling to incur further fees, Plaintiff instructed FKB’s clients not to oppose the motion and substituted herself as the pro se attorney before the bank’s summary judgment motion was fully submitted and granted.
In its pre-answer motion to dismiss, FKB successfully argued that documentary evidence conclusively refuted Plaintiff’s allegations and established that FKB’s clients did everything possible to protect Plaintiff’s interests during the foreclosure proceeding. This was an especially hard fought victory for FKB and its clients, as Plaintiff argued that fraudulent evidence was submitted and sought sanctions for having to oppose a “frivolous” motion.