A Philadelphia judge has tossed out an attorney’s legal malpractice lawsuit against his former divorce attorney because the lawyer plaintiff did not obtain an expert witness.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Marlene F. Lachman, writing in a Nov. 12 opinion, told the state Superior Court that the summary judgment she issued in favor of law firm Fox Rothschild should be upheld because plaintiff Mark B. Frost, a lawyer with Mark B. Frost & Associates in Philadelphia, did not obtain an expert witness. Expert testimony was necessary to make out Frost’s case because the profession of lawyering and the standards by which the profession are judged are beyond the knowledge of most lay jurors, Lachman said in Frost v. Fox Rothschild .
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
