After a jury returned a verdict for Dr. Mary Johnson on her legal malpractice claim against Steven K. Leibel, Leibel filed a motion for JNOV and a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion for JNOV, but granted the motion for new trial. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of Leibel’s motion for new trial but affirmed the denial of the motion for JNOV. See generally Johnson v. Leibel, 307 Ga. App. 32 703 SE2d 702 2010. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the admissibility of testimony by Johnson’s expert on the issue of causation. Specifically, in Division 2, the Court of Appeals concluded that, in a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that “but for the attorney’s negligence in the underlying case, the plaintiff would have prevailed,” and that, although a party cannot generally bolster his case with expert testimony as to the ultimate issue when the jury could reach the same conclusion independently of the opinion of others, such a prohibition does not extend to those cases in which a jury requires expert testimony as to the issue of causation. Id. at 38 2. Citing the pattern jury instruction on legal malpractice claims,1 the Court of Appeals then concluded that expert testimony is “admissible to prove proximate cause in those legal malpractice cases in which a lay person could not competently determine whether or not the negligence of the attorney proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages, i.e., whether or not the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action.” Id., citing Ross v. Edwards, 253 Ga. App. 773, 774 560 SE2d 343 2002.2 This Court granted Leibel’s petition for certiorari to assess the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, and, for the reasons that follow, we reverse.
“In a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish three elements: 1 employment of the defendant attorney, 2 failure of the attorney to exercise ordinary care, skill and diligence, and 3 that such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.” Citations omitted. Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer P.C., 265 Ga. 374, 375 2 a 453 SE2d 719 1995. The first element is not in dispute in the present case, and,
