Opinion ID: 1615292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: proof of legal malpractice

Text: The defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove their legal malpractice case because they did not present an expert to testify whether the defendant attorney failed to exercise the standard of care required of a member of the legal profession. Ordinarily we would agree: The generally accepted rule is that expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to support an action for malpractice of a professional man in those situations where special skills, knowledge, experience, learning or the like are required. Dean v. Conn, 419 So.2d 148, 150 (Miss. 1982). Yet this rule does not apply when the attorney's conduct is negligent as a matter of law and the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict on liability. In Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., supra , we held that the failure of an attorney to file a suit prior to expiration of the statute of limitations was negligence as a matter of law and the plaintiff in such case was entitled to a directed verdict on liability. Even though the Thompson case involved a Mississippi statute of limitations and the Hickoxes' claim fell under a Federal statute, Thompson applies here. Weinberg candidly admitted that he made no effort to check any law to determine the nature of the Hickoxes' claim. Weinberg should have at least done some research in order to properly represent the Hickoxes, especially since he was totally unfamiliar with the Federal Torts Claim Act and its statute of limitations. See Togstad v. Vesely, 291 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1980); Horne v. Peckham, 97 Cal. App.3d 404, 158 Cal. Rptr. 714, 721 (1979); Smith v. Lewis, 13 Cal.3d 349, 118 Cal. Rptr. 621, 627, 530 P.2d 589, 595 (1975). Since Weinberg failed to even open a book, we hold that he was negligent as a matter of law. Any such negligence, of course, is attributable to Boyce Holleman, A Professional Association, via respondeat superior. As the New Mexico Court said in George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 829 (App. 1979): It does not require expert testimony to establish the negligence of an attorney who is ignorant of the applicable statute of limitations or who sits idly by and causes the client to lose the value of his claim for relief. An attorney who delays the bringing of an action until the statute of limitations has run is guilty of negligence if the attorney did not act solely with a view to promote the interest of his client. (citation omitted) Ignorance of statutes or rules of limitation of legal remedies can in itself justify a finding of culpable negligence. See also Watkins v. Sheppard, 278 So.2d 890, 892 (La. Ct. App. 1973); Central Cab Co. v. Clarke, 259 Md. 542, 270 A.2d 662, 668 (1970). Moreover, attorneys involved in malpractice actions must always remember there is a pragmatic difference between the trial of other professional malpractice cases and a legal malpractice case. In the former class, the lawyers and judges are laymen. In professional malpractice cases, excepting extreme cases, we rely upon experts for guidance. The attorney who finds himself the defendant in a legal malpractice case, however, has a judge and the trial attorneys who are already experts.