Opinion ID: 2071463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Exclusion of Brett's Expert Witness

Text: Plaintiff's final issue on appeal concerns the exclusion of the testimony of her legal malpractice expert. In medical malpractice cases, Delaware statutory and case law have required that expert witnesses be familiar with the applicable standard of care in the locality where the alleged malpractice occurred. [36] Plaintiff argues that, in the absence of an analogous statute addressing expert witnesses and legal malpractice claims, the Superior Court erred by excluding the testimony of Neil Hurowitz on the ground that Hurowitz, despite his substantial experience and credentials, was not sufficiently familiar with the standard of care required of lawyers in the State of Delaware. The requirement that an expert witness be familiar with community standards in medical malpractice cases is founded on the desire to eliminate wandering experts who testify in mercenary fashion. [37] Although competency requirements are not designed to preclude all testimony from out-of-state experts, expert witnesses must be well acquainted or thoroughly conversant with the degree of skill ordinarily employed in the local community. [38] In cases where an expert is familiar with a different locality where the standard of care is identical to that observed in the relevant Delaware locality, another expert may provide bridging testimony to reconcile the two standards. [39] We hold that the policies underlying the requirement that medical malpractice experts be competent to testify concerning the standard of skill and care ordinarily employed in the relevant community apply equally to experts in legal malpractice cases. [40] Here, the Superior Court ruled that Hurowitz' knowledge of Delaware law did not automatically provide the requisite familiarity with the standard and degree of skill applicable to Delaware lawyers. In the absence of any showing of such familiarity, and without bridging testimony to harmonize the standard of care in Hurowitz' locality with that of Delaware, we hold that the expert testimony was properly excluded.