This case further expands the exception to the rule against recognizing the assignment of legal malpractice claims. Although the court opined that legal malpractice claims which are part of broader transactions would not create a marketplace where such claims could be traded as commodities, it is possible to take the opposite view. That is, the commercialization of the legal malpractice claim was a central consideration in the transaction which was central to this case. Unlike the sale of a business, this was the sale of a loan, whose primary value turned on whether an appellate court would reverse the dismissal or the merits of the legal malpractice claim.