A New York appellate court has recently allowed a legal malpractice lawsuit to proceed against the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, brought by the family of a victim of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs, led by Rhonda Sapp-Gooding, allege that the firm failed to secure timely judgments and submit applications to the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (VSSTF) before a critical February 2020 deadline, resulting in a recovery of only $13,000 on a $43 million judgment.
The case, Sapp-Gooding v. Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP, centers on the representation provided by the firm in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In 2002, Kreindler & Kreindler initiated the Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army action on behalf of numerous victims and their families. Believing that Sapp-Gooding would sign a retainer agreement, the firm included her in the lawsuit as the personal representative of her late husband, Calvin Gooding. However, Sapp-Gooding did not formally retain the firm or communicate with them until 2020. During this period, the firm secured judgments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and later the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but the plaintiffs received only a fraction of the compensation they were entitled to from the VSSTF.
In 2023, Sapp-Gooding filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Kreindler & Kreindler, alleging that the firm failed to act promptly in filing applications for VSSTF benefits before the February 2020 deadline, which would have resulted in a significantly higher percentage of their eligible damages. The plaintiffs sought an extension of time to serve the summons on the defendants, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Westchester County.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld the lower court’s decision, allowing the extension of time to serve the summons and denying the firm’s motion to dismiss the malpractice claim. The court emphasized the necessity for a liberal interpretation of the plaintiffs’ allegations, stating that they have a cause of action alleging legal malpractice. The judges involved in the ruling were Francesca E. Connolly, Linda Christopher, Lillian Wan, and Susan Quirk.
This ruling underscores the legal standards required to prove a case of malpractice against an attorney. The plaintiffs must demonstrate that the attorneys failed to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge and that this failure caused actual damages. The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Kreindler & Kreindler undertook representation in the Ashton actions and that their actions led to a significant loss of potential compensation.
Kreindler & Kreindler, founded in 1950, is a U.S. law firm specializing in air disaster litigation and has represented plaintiffs in most major aviation disaster litigations. The firm has also been involved in representing victims of the 9/11 attacks, both in the victims’ compensation fund and in litigation against security companies and airlines. Notably, the firm has faced internal controversies, including sanctions for leaking a confidential deposition transcript in the ongoing litigation against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The outcome of this malpractice lawsuit could have significant implications for the responsibilities of law firms in representing clients, particularly in complex and high-stakes litigation involving victims of terrorism.