Source: https://usiaffinity.typepad.com/nysba_insurance_focus/2018/10/when-is-expert-testimony-necessary-in-a-legal-malpractice-case-.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:02:11+00:00

Document:
In New York, expert testimony is generally required at trial or on a motion for summary judgment to successfully establish (or defend) each element of a legal malpractice claim. A major exception to that rule exists when the issues to be determined are within a layperson’s experience and comprehension1.
*This article was prepared by Andrew Jones and Aaron Barham of the New York City-based law firm of Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP. Andrew and Aaron work as part of a team of 15 lawyers and paralegals devoted to the defense of attorneys and other professionals in malpractice and disciplinary matters, as well as the defense of construction and personal-injury accidents.
For more information about the above topic or the authors, please visit: www.fkblaw.com.
We trust that the above article was useful and thought-provoking; however, please note that it is intended as a general guide and opinion only, not a complete analysis of the issues addressed, and readers should always seek specific legal guidance on particular matters.For more information on LPL coverage generally, contact USI Affinity today.
See, e.g., Suppiah v. Kalish, 76 A.D.3d 829 (1st Dept 2010); Wo Yee Hing Realty Corp. v. Stern, 99 A.D.3d 58 (1st Dept 2012); Melnick v Farrell, 128 A.D.3d 1371 (4th Dept 2014).
Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58 n.10 (Pa. 1989); Storm v. Golden, 538 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. 1988).
See Pa.R.C.P. 1042; Moore v. Luchsinger, 862 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 2004). Under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.3(a), the certificate must be filed within 60 days of the complaint and certify that (1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, or (2) the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or (3) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim.
Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258 (3d Cir. 2011).
Gans v. Mundy, 762 F.2d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 1985); Zimmer Paper Products, Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C., 758 D.2d 86, 93-94 (3d Cir. 1985).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.