Opinion ID: 2598748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: professional malpractice

Text: [¶ 15] Much of Wyoming's professional malpractice law has developed in the arena of medical malpractice. [¶ 16] This Court has imported that law into the field of legal malpractice: After establishing a duty, the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case `has the obligation to establish (1) the accepted standard of medical care or practice, (2) that the doctor's conduct departed from the standard, and (3) that his conduct was the legal cause of the injuries suffered. ...' ... We conclude that the test applicable in our medical malpractice cases should also apply in the analogous situation of a legal malpractice claim. Moore v. Lubnau, 855 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Wyo. 1993) ( quoting Metzger, 709 P.2d at 421 and Harris v. Grizzle, 625 P.2d 747, 751 (Wyo. 1981)). [1] [¶ 17] The general standard of care for lawyers in Wyoming is `that degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in this jurisdiction.' Moore, 855 P.2d at 1248. As with medical malpractice, establishment of the actual standard adhered to by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer must typically be accomplished through expert testimony. Peterson v. Scorsine, 898 P.2d 382, 388 (Wyo.1995); Moore, 855 P.2d at 1249. However, expert testimony is not required where the common sense and experience of a layperson are sufficient to establish the standard of care. Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509, 516 (Wyo.1995) ( quoting Moore, 855 P.2d at 1248). [¶ 18] This Court has not previously been called upon to say whether these same principles apply to allegations of accountant malpractice. We cannot see why they should not. As in the case of lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, and others engaged in rendering professional services for compensation, it is implied in all contracts for the employment of public accountants that they will render their services with that degree of skill, care, knowledge, and judgment usually possessed and exercised by members of that profession in the particular locality, in accordance with accepted professional standards and in good faith without fraud or collusion. While not insurers against damage, it is generally recognized that accountants may be held liable to clients for damages resulting from fraud, misconduct, or negligence in their professional undertaking. 1 Am.Jur.2d Accountants § 19 at 543 (1994) (footnote omitted); [2] see also Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 174 Ariz. 277, 848 P.2d 856, 860 (1992). [¶ 19] Just as with other professionals, a question has been raised as to whether an allegation of accountant malpractice sounds in tort or in contract. Since a client's malpractice action against an accountant is necessarily based to some degree on a violation of the parties' contract, either by malfeasance or nonfeasance, some jurisdictions adhere to the view that an action for accountant malpractice is maintainable only on a breach of contract theory. However, the courts have more frequently recognized that accountants may be held liable to clients for malpractice in actions founded both on contract and tort. 1 Am.Jur.2d Accountants, supra, § 20 (footnote omitted). Some courts consider the action to be one in contract if the allegation is a violation of a specific contract term, but in tort if the allegation is a violation of a duty imposed by law as a result of the contractual relationship. See, for example, Thomas v. Cleary, 768 P.2d 1090, 1092 n. 6 (Alaska 1989); Billings Clinic v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 244 Mont. 324, 797 P.2d 899, 908 (1990); and DOIT, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835, 841-42 (Utah 1996). When the cause of action for professional negligence sounds in tort, the elements are (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence. Linck v. Barokas & Martin, 667 P.2d 171, 173 n. 4 (Alaska 1983). [¶ 20] We conclude that the standards as to professional malpractice that we have formerly adopted for medical malpractice, and have extended to legal malpractice, should apply equally in regard to allegations of accountant malpractice. Nothing has been shown to this Court to suggest that the practice of accounting, or the relationship between accountant and client, requires a different standard. After establishing a duty based on the accountant-client contract, the plaintiff in an accounting malpractice case has the obligation to establish (1) the accepted standard of accounting care or practice, (2) that the accountant's conduct departed from that standard, and (3) that the accountant's conduct was the legal cause of the injuries suffered.