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

lawsuitlitigationliabilityappealtrialtestimonysummary judgmentmalpracticeclass actionlegal malpractice

plaintifflitigationattorneyappealtestimonyduty of care

Related Cases

Valentine v. Watters, 896 So.2d 385

Facts

Valentine underwent breast-implant surgery in 1988, which led to complications. She consulted Watters, who allegedly misrepresented his experience in breast-implant litigation, leading her to hire him. After filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer, her case was consolidated with a class action. Valentine frequently inquired about her case status and was assured that her paperwork was filed, but later learned that it had not been submitted before the deadline. This led her to file a malpractice suit against Watters for failing to file the necessary documents and for misrepresentation.

On June 24, 1988, Valentine underwent bilateral breast-implant surgery. The implants later caused problems, including pain, hardness, discoloration, swelling, and leakage. Valentine consulted attorney Richard Watters about pursuing litigation. Valentine and Watters dispute the substance of their conversation at that consultation.

Issue

Whether expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care in a legal malpractice case involving misrepresentation and failure to file paperwork.

Valentine argues that this Court should determine: (1) whether her misrepresentation claim is governed by the ALSLA; (2) whether under the ALSLA she is required to present expert testimony on the question whether Watters was negligent as a matter of law in failing to timely file her paperwork with the MDL; and, (3) whether she is required under the ALSLA to present expert testimony to establish that Watters breached the duty of care he owed her.

Rule

Under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA), expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care in legal malpractice cases, unless the breach of duty is so apparent that it can be understood by a layperson.

Section 6–5–580, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the ALSLA, states that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the legal-service provider breached the standard of care.

Analysis

The court determined that Valentine's claims regarding Watters's failure to file the necessary paperwork and his misrepresentation of his qualifications were issues that could be understood by a layperson. Therefore, expert testimony was not required to establish that Watters breached the standard of care. The court emphasized that the failure to file paperwork in a timely manner is a matter of common knowledge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Watters and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Valentine to pursue her claims without the need for expert testimony.

We hold that a trier of fact with common knowledge and experience could determine that an attorney's representation that he or she has had experience in a certain type of litigation, when that representation is not true, violates the standard of care.

Who won?

Linnie F. Valentine prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the issues raised could be determined by a jury without the need for expert testimony.

Valentine prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the issues raised could be determined by a jury without the need for expert testimony.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 529 A.2d 171

Kronberg v. LaRouche, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1443934

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740

U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 54 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 335, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5530, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7377

In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II), 640 F.2d 49, 6 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 616