Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffattorneynegligenceappealtrialtestimonysummary judgmentmalpracticeexpert witnesslegal malpractice
contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantappealtrialtestimonysummary judgmentmalpracticelegal malpractice

Related Cases

Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp. v. Norwest Bank of Jamestown, N.W., 854 F.2d 1122
View Case »
Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346
View Case »
Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin, 2011 Ark. 51, 378 S.W.3d 135
View Case »
Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782
View Case »
Morrow v. State Bar of California, 188 F.3d 1174, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7261, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9335
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moore v. Crone, 114 Conn.App. 443, 970 A.2d 757, 58 A.L.R.6th 769

Facts

Brian Moore was convicted of attempt to commit murder and two counts of assault in the first degree, with Leonard M. Crone serving as his attorney during both the trial and the appeal. Moore filed a complaint against Crone alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract, but did not disclose any expert witness to support his claims. The trial court found that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care and granted summary judgment in favor of Crone.

The plaintiff was convicted of attempt to commit murder and two counts of assault in the first degree. The defendant represented the plaintiff in both the trial and the appeal. On March 24, 2005, the plaintiff filed a one count complaint against the defendant alleging legal malpractice.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in requiring expert testimony to support the plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that an expert is not required for him to prevail on his claims and that the court should have considered his case on the merits.

Rule

In Connecticut, to prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of proper professional skill or care, unless the alleged negligence is so obvious that it can be understood by a layperson.

Generally, to prevail on a legal malpractice claim, in Connecticut, a plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of proper professional skill or care…. Not only must the plaintiffs establish the standard of care, but they must also establish that the defendant's conduct legally caused the injury of which they complain.

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims made by Moore and determined that the alleged acts of negligence did not meet the threshold of being so obvious that expert testimony was unnecessary. The court referenced previous cases that established the need for expert testimony in legal malpractice claims and concluded that the plaintiff's allegations required expert evidence to assist in understanding the applicable standard of care.

The court properly concluded that the general rule requiring expert testimony in a legal malpractice action applied and that in the absence of such testimony, the plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract could not be proven at trial.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the requirement for expert testimony was applicable and that the plaintiff's claims could not be proven without it.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Who won?

Leonard M. Crone prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide necessary expert testimony to support his claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract.

The court rendered summary judgment on the basis of this court's decision in Dixon v. Bromson & Reiner, 95 Conn.App. 294, 300, 898 A.2d 193 (2006) (summary judgment proper when plaintiff alleging legal malpractice fails to establish claim by expert testimony).

You must be