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

plaintiffdefendantattorneytrialmalpracticelegal malpractice
plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyertrialmalpracticelegal malpractice

Related Cases

Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 179 N.W.2d 288
View Case »
Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 95 P.3d 513, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 150 Lab.Cas. P 59,883, 21 IER Cases 1244, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7367, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9911
View Case »
Hunydee v. U.S., 355 F.2d 183, 17 A.F.T.R.2d 262, 66-1 USTC P 9137
View Case »
Fusco v. City of Albany, 134 Misc.2d 98, 509 N.Y.S.2d 763
View Case »
New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. D.C., 118 N.J. 388, 571 A.2d 1295
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Hundley, 102 Conn.App. 490, 925 A.2d 1161

Facts

Martha Hundley hired the law firm Traystman, Coric & Keramidas for her dissolution of marriage action against her husband, Bert Coppotelli. During the proceedings, Hundley was advised by her attorney, Scott M. McGowan, to obtain a valuation of her husband's medical practice and real estate, but she declined and signed a statement to proceed without it. After the trial, she was not awarded any portion of the value of the practice and owed the firm $2825.09 for legal services, leading to the firm's small-claims action and Hundley's counterclaim for legal malpractice.

The defendant owed the plaintiff $2825.09 for legal services provided subsequent to the dissolution trial, but she failed to pay her bill.

Issue

Did the trial court improperly instruct the jury on the standard of care for legal malpractice, and did this error result in injustice to the defendant?

The defendant claims that the court improperly instructed the jury on legal malpractice.

Rule

The standard of care for attorneys is the exercise of the same degree of care, skill, and diligence which other attorneys practicing in the same area of law would exercise under similar circumstances.

The standard or level of professional care to which a lawyer must be held in this case is the exercise of the same degree of care, skill and diligence which other attorneys practicing matrimonial law in Connecticut and aware of local customs must exercise under similar circumstances.

Analysis

The court acknowledged that the jury instruction regarding local customs as part of the standard of care was erroneous. However, it reasoned that the error did not cause injustice because the jury's finding indicated that McGowan exercised the same degree of care as other attorneys practicing matrimonial law in Connecticut. The court concluded that the improper reference to local customs did not diminish the required standard of care and could have even benefitted the plaintiff.

Despite the court's improper reference to local customs in defining the standard of care, we disagree with the defendant's claim that injustice resulted from that improper reference.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the jury instruction error did not result in injustice to the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

The law firm, Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, prevailed in the case because the jury found that they had exercised the appropriate standard of care in representing Hundley.

The jury determined that McGowan had exercised the same degree of care as other attorneys practicing matrimonial law in this state and that he was aware of local customs.

You must be