From Neuman v. Frank, 82 A.D. 3d 1642 (4th Dep’t 2011):

"A cause of action for legal malpractice must be based on the existence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of the alleged malpractice' " (TVGA Eng'g, Surveying, P.C. v Gallick [appeal No. 2], 45 A.D.3d 1252, 1256, 846 N.Y.S.2d 506; see Compis Servs., Inc. v Greenman, 15 AD3d 855, 789 N.Y.S.2d 369, lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 709, 830 N.E.2d 1145, 797 N.Y.S.2d 816). The fiduciary duty of an attorney, however, "extends both to current clients and former clients and thus is broader in scope than a cause of action for legal malpractice" (TVGA Eng'g, Surveying, P.C., 45 AD3d at 1256; see Greene v Greene, 47 NY2d 447, 453, 391 N.E.2d 1355, 418 N.Y.S.2d 379). Thus, a cause of action for legal malpractice based upon alleged misconduct occurring during the attorney's representation of the plaintiff is not duplicative of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based upon alleged misconduct occurring after the termination of the representation (see Country Club Partners, LLC v Goldman, 79 AD3d 1389, 1391, 913 N.Y.S.2d 803; Kurman v Schnapp, 73 AD3d 435, 435-436, 901 N.Y.S.2d 17).