Case Title: Knott v. Pratt

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-497


 Pauline v. Knott                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Orleans Superior Court

 Leslie C. Pratt                              December Term, 1991


 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Pauline V. Knott, pro se, Craftsbury Common, plaintiff-appellant

 Douglas C. Pierson and Thomas M. Higgins of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn &
   Yates, Burlington, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   In this lawyer malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from
 a judgment for defendant, entered after a trial without a jury.  The court
 found that defendant's representation of plaintiff was not negligent, and,
 in any event, did not cause plaintiff any harm.  Plaintiff argues that the
 court was wrong on both conclusions.  We affirm.
      In order to recover on a legal malpractice claim, plaintiff must prove
 both that defendant was negligent and that the negligence proximately caused
 plaintiff's harm.  Brown v. Kelly, 140 Vt. 336, 338,