In Holschauer v. Fisher, 5 AD3d 553 [2d Dept 2004] the defendant attorney reviewed his litigation strategy with the plaintiff, a physician who was facing disciplinary charges, as to whether to proceed to a hearing which most likely would have resulted in revocation of the plaintiff's medical license, or to accept the commission's offer for a one-year suspension of his license to practice medicine, a five-year probationary period thereafter, and a two-year period during which he would be monitored by a practice supervisor. The physician accepted the commission's offer. Thereafter, he commenced an action against his former attorney to recover damages for legal malpractice, claiming that he was unable to obtain approval for a practice supervisor and that the defendant attorney should have negotiated a better settlement for him by obtaining pre-approval of his practice supervisor. He claimed that if his medical license had been revoked as a result of the hearing, he could have nevertheless reapplied for it after three years had elapsed and thus could have been able to practice medicine without supervision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, holding that "while the plaintiff poses an alternative strategy which might have been pursued by the defendant, the selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice" (id. at 554).