Attorney obtained an Order for Summary Judgment in a legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying matrimonial case

Attorney obtained an Order for Summary Judgment in a legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying matrimonial case.  In the legal malpractice action, the plaintiff wife argued that her attorneys in the matrimonial case failed to discover certain assets of the husband, and failed to obtain equitable distribution regarding those assets.  In the case, the attorney had obtained an Order from the court appointing a Guardian for the wife. Therefore, in the legal malpractice action, the attorney argued that the action against the client attorney was barred because (1) a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem reviewed and approved the settlement; (2) the legal malpractice action was barred under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel based upon the court's hearing after the plenary hearing in the underlying divorce action; and (3) the plaintiff could not establish through expert testimony that even if the assets were discovered, that the husband would have agreed to provide them to the wife.  In addition, the court ruled that the Guardian (a well-known matrimonial attorney) and the attorney in the legal malpractice action who represented the wife in the underlying case had a combined 44 years of experience handling matrimonial cases at the time the underlying matter was settled.  The plaintiff could not prove that she was entitled to a more favorable settlement and, as noted above, the action was barred in any event because the issues in question had been decided by the trial court in the divorce action after a plenary hearing.