Opinion ID: 1198908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to instruct on professional duties

Text: At trial, TH proposed that the trial court instruct the jury that PCI's attorneys were bound to perform only those legal services that they were hired to perform, to ensure all pleadings were well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law, and to avoid incurring unnecessary fees and costs. The court balked at the proposal, saying that it would be totally unfair to [PCI] for me to be inserting myself into the position of expert witness for [TH] as to what the proper duties of the attorneys were. TH concedes that these issues were addressed by PCI's expert witness, but argues that the trial court should have accepted the proposed instruction since the evidence showed that PCI's president told its attorneys to stand still. When read as a whole, however, the instructions actually given adequately informed the jury of the relevant law. See Kavorkian v. Tommy's Elbow Room, 694 P.2d 160, 166 (Alaska 1985). We find no error.