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

contractlawsuitbreach of contractattorneydiscoverytrialtestimonymotionsummary judgmentburden of proofmalpracticeexpert witnesslegal malpractice

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialtestimonymalpracticefelonyexpert witnesslegal malpractice

Related Cases

Wong v. Ekberg, 148 N.H. 369, 807 A.2d 1266

Facts

Allan Wong was convicted of receiving stolen property and subsequently filed a lawsuit against his attorney, Donald M. Ekberg, alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract. Wong claimed that Ekberg was negligent in his investigation and trial strategy, and that he breached their fee agreement by failing to adequately defend him. The trial court excluded Wong's proposed expert testimony as a discovery sanction due to his failure to disclose it in a timely manner, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Allan Wong, appeals an order by the Superior Court (Fauver, J.) dismissing his claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract against the defendant, Donald M. Ekberg.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Wong was required to present expert testimony to establish the standard of care in his legal malpractice claim and whether the breach of contract claim was valid.

The plaintiff first argues that the trial court improperly barred the testimony of his expert witness.

Rule

In legal malpractice cases, expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care owed by an attorney and to prove a breach of that standard, particularly when the issues are not within the common knowledge of laypersons.

In a legal malpractice case, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that an attorney-client relationship existed, which placed a duty upon the attorney to exercise reasonable professional care, skill and knowledge in providing legal services to that client; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) resultant harm legally caused by that breach.

Analysis

The court determined that Wong's claims necessitated expert testimony to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate any breach thereof. Since Wong failed to disclose his expert witness in accordance with the court's rules, the trial court's exclusion of the testimony was justified. Consequently, without expert testimony, Wong could not substantiate his claims of legal malpractice or breach of contract, as they were essentially the same.

The court determined that Wong's claims necessitated expert testimony to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate any breach thereof.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Wong's claims were properly dismissed due to his inability to provide necessary expert testimony.

Who won?

Donald M. Ekberg prevailed in the case because Wong failed to meet the burden of proof required for his claims, particularly the lack of expert testimony to establish the standard of care.

The defendant is the attorney who represented the plaintiff when he was convicted on a felony charge of receiving stolen property.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Collins v. Reynard, 154 Ill.2d 48, 607 N.E.2d 1185, 180 Ill.Dec. 672, 61 USLW 2362

Stringfellow v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 3084286

Crumpton v. Humana, Inc., 99 N.M. 562, 661 P.2d 54, 1983 -NMSC- 034

Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Cook, 857 N.E.2d 989

Perlov v. G.D. Searle & Co., 621 F.Supp. 1146, 3 Fed.R.Serv.3d 228, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,879