In a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff (a former client) must establish the employment of an attorney (the defendant) or other basis for a duty, the failure of that attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge, and that the attorney was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.
Generally, trial courts require expert testimony as to the standard of care, its breach and causation to be propounded by the professional negligence plaintiff. However, this overboard requirement of expert opinion in professional negligence matters is counterintuitive in a legal malpractice action (i.e., where the court can adjudicate the law and then instruct the jury as to the same). In fact, contrary to this general trial presumption (that an expert is required), the Supreme Court has stated that no expert is required not only where the negligence was simplistic (i.e., allowance of the expiration of the statute of limitations), but also where the malpracticing counsel-defendant's standard of care can be readily established. Thus, the Supreme Court has explicitly held the obvious: Where the standard of care can be deduced as a matter of law, no expert is required.
This content has been archived.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]
