In 2000, attorney Richard McNeely represented Gary Wilson in connection with Wilson’s purchase of certain real property in Emanuel County, and Wilson subsequently brought this legal malpractice action against McNeely.1 On the eve of trial, Wilson identified his brother, Rodney Wilson, as the witness who would testify as an expert regarding the acceptable standard of conduct of an attorney in a real estate closing. McNeely moved in limine to exclude the witness’s testimony, arguing that the witness did not qualify as an expert because he did not practice law at the relevant time. After empaneling a jury, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on McNeely’s motion in limine and granted the motion. When Wilson announced that he was not prepared to call any other witness on the issue of the applicable professional standard of care, McNeely moved for a directed verdict. Because Wilson was unable to support his malpractice claim with expert testimony as to the standard of care, the trial court granted McNeely’s motion for a directed verdict. Wilson appeals pro se, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the witness was not qualified as an expert. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. 1. Expert testimony is admissible when “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact . . . to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” OCGA § 24-9-67.1 b. Generally, a witness may be qualified to give such testimony by his or her “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Id. The Evidence Code imposes special requirements on expert testimony that is offered in a professional malpractice action on the issue of the acceptable standard of conduct of the professional whose conduct is at issue. OCGA § 24-9-67.1 c. Such testimony “shall be admissible only if, at the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, such expert was licensed by an appropriate regulatory agency to practice his or her profession in the state in which such expert was practicing or teaching in the profession at such time.” Punctuation omitted. OCGA § 24-9-67.1 c. As we have held, “in order to comply with the licensing requirement of OCGA § 24-9-67.1 c 1, an expert in a professional malpractice action must be licensed and practicing or teaching in one of the states of the United States at the time the alleged negligent act occurred.” Emphasis added. Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga. App. 181, 186-187 687 SE2d 198 2009. “The determination of whether a witness is qualified to render an opinion as an expert is a legal determination for the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Citation and punctuation omitted. HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton-King , __Ga.__ Case Nos. S09G1219, S09G1224, decided June 28, 2010; see also Moran v. Kia Motors America , 276 Ga. App. 96, 97 1 622 SE2d 439 2005 accord.
In this case, it is undisputed that the witness was a member in good standing of the State Bar of Georgia at the time of McNeely’s alleged negligence, although he did not have a municipal business license as an attorney or malpractice insurance coverage. On the issue of whether the witness was practicing or teaching law at the relevant time, the witness testified at the hearing on McNeely’s motion in limine that he worked in a family-owned wholesale equipment distribution business, and he described his principle occupation as that of a “merchant.” The witness also described himself as “somewhat corporate counsel” for that business. The witness testified, however, that, at the relevant time, he did not represent his company or any other litigant in court, although he did sometimes informally “try to help people out,” did not draft or file pleadings for judicial proceedings; did not prepare deeds or other conveyancing documents; did not search property title records or issue an attorney’s title certificate; and did not perform the legal tasks inherent in closing real estate transactions.2 The witness nonetheless considered himself to be practicing law “every day, because the things that you learn, the things that you do, the things in life all involve the law.”
