Other courts across the country have also relaxed the privity requirements. Because jurors are not generally familiar with the requirements of proper legal representation, expert witnesses must be presented to advise the jury of the standard of care. Since 1960, virtually every state has held that expert testimony is admissible to advise jurors as to the standard of care. This development may make plaintiffs' cases easier because attorneys are generally loathe to testify against their neighbors, but will testify against attorneys practicing in a different area of the state. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the connection between the attorney's wrongful conduct and the resulting injury.
Causation is a question normally left for the fact finder.
The successful plaintiff in a malpractice case is usually entitled to economic losses that are the direct result of the attorney's malpractice. While it is hard to generalize as to the extent of consequential damages permitted by the courts, most courts uphold recovery for foreseeable injuries. Violation of the professional code is not malpractice per se. Since the Model Code of Professional Responsibility does not provide for a direct malpractice action, the breach of an ethics rule provides only a public, i.e., disciplinary remedy, and not a private remedy. How to Avoid Malpractice.