of a contract dispute, the Defendants take a more narrow interpretation, arguing that each allegation of malpractice ought to be treated as a discrete act. As the analysis in the cases cited by both parties make clear, how the Court ultimately characterizes the nature of the dispute will determine whether venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. For example, the Plaintiff primarily relies Borman & Brand, LLP, 10-CV-264, 2010 WL 3021889, at *6 (D.Nev. July 29, 2010) (granting a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) and noting that the action giving rise to the legal malpractice claim is the legal work performed, and therefore venue is proper in the location of the legal representation); but see Stewart v. Stoller, No. 7-CV-552, 2008 WL 4168519 (D.Utah Aug. 28, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable
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 that venue was proper in kansas because both of the defendants conducted many of their activities with the plaintiff through the mail despite that fact that the defendants activities may have been more substantial in california 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 the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case holding that utah jurisdiction was proper over washington state resident who commenced proceedings in utah to enforce visitation and custody provisions of divorce decree