Excusable neglect not acceptable

When Heavy Workload Isn’t Enough: Court Rejects Attorney’s Excuse for Default

In New York’s legal system, attorneys who miss critical deadlines face an uphill battle when seeking to undo the consequences. The recent case of A.B. Med., PLLC v CNA Ins. Co. serves as a stark reminder that courts hold legal professionals to high standards when it comes to meeting procedural requirements.

This decision from the Appellate Term highlights a common but unsuccessful defense: claiming a heavy workload as justification for missing deadlines. The case involved a medical provider’s attempt to vacate a default order after their attorney failed to timely oppose an insurance company’s motion. What makes this case particularly noteworthy is not just the initial failure, but the attorney’s nearly 10-month delay in seeking relief, compounding the procedural missteps.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

A.B. Med., PLLC v Cna Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50199(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“Here, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely submit written opposition to defendant’s prior motion, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. In support of plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default order, plaintiff’s attorney alleged that her late submission of an affirmation in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was the result of her heavy workload. Her explanation to justify the default amounted to nothing more than mere neglect, which is not accepted as an excusable default (see Strunk v Revenge Cab Corp., 98 AD3d 1029 ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Preferred Trucking Serv. Corp., 42 Misc 3d 88 ). Moreover, plaintiff’s attorney offered no reason for waiting almost 10 months to move to vacate the default order”

Legal Significance: The Neglect Versus Excuse Distinction

The A.B. Medical decision reinforces a fundamental principle in default vacatur jurisprudence: mere neglect, even when explained, doesn’t constitute reasonable excuse. Courts distinguish between excusable circumstances beyond the attorney’s control and failures attributable to poor practice management or inadequate attention to cases. Heavy workload falls squarely into the latter category—it reflects the attorney’s decision to accept more work than they can competently handle or their failure to adequately staff their practice.

This distinction protects opposing parties’ legitimate expectations. When parties stipulate to briefing schedules or courts impose deadlines, they’re entitled to rely on those deadlines. Allowing attorneys to excuse missed deadlines by claiming busy schedules would render deadlines meaningless and reward attorneys who overextend themselves at the expense of more diligent practitioners. Courts therefore hold that workload management is part of basic professional competence, and failures in this area don’t warrant judicial relief.

The extended delay before seeking vacatur compounded the attorney’s problems in A.B. Medical. Even if heavy workload might sometimes constitute excuse (which courts generally reject), the nearly 10-month delay demonstrated the plaintiff wasn’t diligently pursuing relief. This delay suggested the default order didn’t result from excusable circumstances but rather from ongoing inattention to the case. Prompt action to vacate defaults demonstrates the mishap was isolated; lengthy delays suggest systemic neglect.

Practical Implications: Professional Responsibility and Case Management

For attorneys, A.B. Medical serves as a stark reminder that courts won’t rescue lawyers from the consequences of poor practice management. Attorneys must implement systems ensuring compliance with deadlines even during busy periods. These systems might include calendar redundancies, delegation to properly supervised staff, engagement of co-counsel when workload becomes unmanageable, or declining new matters when existing cases demand full attention.

When defaults occur, attorneys must act immediately to seek relief. The longer the delay, the less likely courts will find excuse sufficient to warrant vacatur. Immediate action demonstrates the default resulted from isolated error rather than general neglect. Delayed action suggests the attorney isn’t prioritizing the case and may not be capable of properly prosecuting it if relief were granted. The 10-month delay in A.B. Medical essentially guaranteed the motion would fail, regardless of other factors.

Key Takeaway

Courts consistently reject attorney workload as grounds for excusing missed deadlines, classifying such explanations as “mere neglect.” This case reinforces that legal professionals must implement proper case management systems and cannot rely on being overwhelmed as a defense. The extended delay in seeking relief only strengthens the court’s position against vacating defaults based on inadequate excuses.

Related Articles

• Failure to stipulate to an adjournment can be law office failure – sufficient to vacate a summary judgment loss on default
• A really bad default
• Defaults…