In Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834 [2d Dept 1983], a woman terminated her relationship with a law firm that represented her in a marital dissolution action, and hired a new attorney. The new attorney endeavored to rectify what the client viewed as errors on the part of the predecessor, which effort included representing the woman in a lawsuit against it. The former firm commenced a third-party action against the new attorney, alleging that he negligently failed to seek a resettlement of the judgment of divorce, and it sought discovery against him on the ground that he was believed to possess information regarding the extent of the client's damages. The Court granted the new attorney's motion for a protective order, finding that there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege because: "it simply cannot be said that the plaintiff has placed her privileged communications with her present attorney in issue, or that discovery of such communications is required to enable defendants to assert a defense or to prosecute the third-party claim. To conclude otherwise would render the privilege illusory in all legal malpractice actions: the former attorney could, merely by virtue of asserting a third-party claim for contribution against the present attorney, effectively invade the privilege in every case." (Jakobleff, 97 AD2d at 835.)