A federal lawsuit against a Maryland family-law attorney could test how far courts will go in holding lawyers accountable when alleged mistakes in custody litigation permanently alter a child’s relationship with a parent.

Jeffrey W. Reichert, a Maryland attorney and Army veteran, has sued his former lawyer, Thomas J. Fleckenstein, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from a high-stakes custody case in Anne Arundel County.

The lawsuit claims Fleckenstein’s representation during the custody proceedings was so deficient that it directly contributed to Reichert losing custody of his son after a six-day trial in September 2022.

If Reichert ultimately succeeds, the case could highlight the difficulty parents face in challenging legal representation in family courts—and potentially reshape expectations for how attorneys handle custody litigation.

---

Allegations of critical failures

According to the complaint, Reichert hired Fleckenstein in November 2020 to defend his custodial rights after already holding primary custody under a 2019 consent order.

The lawsuit alleges several major failures during the case:

• Witnesses were not called: Six potential witnesses present at hearings were never presented to the court.
• Key discovery was not conducted: The lawyer allegedly failed to conduct depositions during the discovery period.
• Expert testimony was lost: A therapist prepared as a witness was never designated as an expert despite substantial preparation costs.
• Strategic decisions were questioned: Reichert claims he was advised to allow a protective order protecting the child to expire because custody “could not be changed.”
• Withdrawal before trial: Fleckenstein withdrew from representation roughly five weeks before the custody trial.

Reichert alleges these actions left him unprepared for trial and contributed to the court awarding custody to the child’s mother.

He claims the consequences included severe emotional distress, reputational damage, and more than $900,000 in legal expenses attempting to restore his parental rights.

---

Case survives partial dismissal

In January 2026, U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ruled on Fleckenstein’s motion to dismiss.

The court allowed some malpractice claims to proceed, particularly those involving the alleged failure to conduct depositions and failure to designate an expert witness. However, the judge dismissed other claims and struck the request for punitive damages.

That ruling narrowed the case but kept the core malpractice allegations alive.

---

Why the case matters beyond one custody dispute

Legal malpractice claims tied to family-court litigation are relatively rare and often difficult to prove.

To succeed, plaintiffs generally must show not only that a lawyer made serious errors but also that the outcome of the underlying case would likely have been different without those mistakes—a standard sometimes referred to as the “case-within-a-case.”

If Reichert ultimately prevails, legal analysts say the case could have several broader implications:

1. Increased scrutiny of family-law representation

Family courts handle some of the most consequential disputes—custody, parental rights, and child welfare—but malpractice claims arising from those cases are uncommon.

A successful verdict could encourage more clients to challenge representation in custody litigation.

2. Discovery obligations in custody cases

The surviving claims focus on failure to conduct depositions and failure to designate expert witnesses, which are core elements of trial preparation.

A ruling that these failures constitute malpractice could raise expectations for how aggressively family lawyers must pursue discovery.

3. The difficulty of reversing custody outcomes

Custody orders often become entrenched once entered. Parents who believe their lawyers mishandled their case may see malpractice litigation as one of the few remaining legal remedies.

4. Financial exposure for family-law practitioners

If liability is established, damages could include costs associated with attempts to regain parental rights and other economic losses tied to the original custody decision.

---

A broader legal battle

The malpractice case is one piece of a wider series of lawsuits filed by Reichert related to his custody dispute and criminal proceedings that followed. Other litigation involves allegations of malicious prosecution and civil rights violations connected to protective order filings and arrests.

Those parallel cases are still working their way through federal courts.

---

The bottom line

For now, the malpractice lawsuit remains in its early stages. But if Reichert ultimately proves that attorney negligence altered the outcome of a custody battle, the case could become a notable test of accountability for legal representation in family courts—where the stakes are measured not only in money, but in relationships between parents and children.