not otherwise directly relate the Fire text, the conversations were, at most, tangentially related to the continued inclusion of the Fire text in the Hannon Applications, and therefore did not constitute a substantial event. See Astor Holdings, Inc. v. Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, P.C., 2003 WL 21108316, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2003) (“The advice given at the May 2001 meeting, even if it were to continue the New York action, was tangential to the core of the alleged malpractice, which was the advice to file the action in the first place. The advice given at the May 2001 meeting cannot be considered a substantial part of Steefel’s overall malpractice, the majority of which occurred in California.”) (emphasis in original); see also Loeb v. Bank of Am., 254 F.Supp.2d 581, 587 (E.D.Pa.2003) (<HOLDING>); Circle Group Internet, Inc. v. Atlas,
recognizing that if the plaintiff files suit in a county where venue does not lie the plaintiff waives the right to choose and the defendant may have the suit transferred to a proper venue holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding in a legal malpractice case where defendants allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest that incidental events such as the correspondence and calls plaintiff relies on that have only some tangential connection with the dispute in litigation were not enough to support venue where the plaintiff resided holding that venue in a legal malpractice action was proper in utah where the plaintiff resided despite the fact that the attorneys were located in california because the plaintiff had telephone conversations and corresponded with each of the defendants from utah and therefore the attorneys had purposefully and regularly directed their contacts toward a utah resident when they were retained and throughout their handling of the infringement action holding that although the defendantattorney did not disclose to the plaintiff his failure to file a claim in a timely manner the limitations period on the legal malpractice claim began to run when the plaintiff could reasonably discern that he suffered some harm caused by the defendants conduct