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

attorneynegligencetrialtestimonypleaburden of proofmalpracticelegal malpracticerespondentmaritime law
damagesliabilitytrialtestimonyburden of proofrespondentappellantadmiralty law

Related Cases

Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058
View Case »
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149
View Case »
Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 132 S.Ct. 627, 181 L.Ed.2d 571, 80 USLW 4028, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 432, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 32
View Case »
The Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So.2d 1070, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S330
View Case »
McKinley v. State, 45 N.E.3d 25
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wright v. Williams, 47 Cal.App.3d 802, 121 Cal.Rptr. 194

Facts

In 1969, Dr. Rogers H. Wright and Dr. Alan J. Glasser, along with Samuel Lecocq, sought to purchase a vessel for a business offering cruises to skin divers. They agreed to purchase the Kona Sea, a converted Coast Guard vessel, and consulted Richard G. Wilson, who referred them to respondent, a specialist in maritime law. The clients did not disclose their intended commercial use of the vessel, stating it was for 'pleasure.' The attorney arranged the title transfer, which included a restriction preventing the vessel's use in coastwide trade, a fact that later led to the clients being cited by the Coast Guard.

In September of 1969, appellants tentatively agreed to purchase Kona Sea, an 83-foot converted Coast Guard vessel, for a price of $43,000 intending to refurbish her and use her in their contemplated business venture.

Issue

Did the attorney commit legal malpractice by failing to inform the clients of the legal effect of the endorsement in the documents of title that precluded the vessel's use in coastwide trade?

The issue of liability was tried prior to that of damages.

Rule

The court applied the principle that in legal malpractice cases involving specialized legal services, expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and whether it was met.

We conclude that appellants having failed to offer expert testimony defining the standard of duty owed by respondent in the performance by him of a highly specialized legal service or that respondent failed to perform as a reasonably prudent specialist in his field, appellants did not sustain their burden of proof in the trial court.

Analysis

The court found that the clients did not provide expert testimony to establish the standard of care applicable to the attorney's performance in this specialized area of maritime law. The court noted that without such testimony, it could not determine whether the attorney's actions fell below the standard expected of a reasonably prudent specialist in his field.

Without expert testimony that a reasonably prudent specialist in admiralty law would, under the facts as the trial court found them, have acted differently than did respondent, there is no basis to attach legal fault to his conduct.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the attorney, concluding that the clients failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the attorney's alleged negligence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

The attorney prevailed in the case because the clients did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was negligent in his representation.

The trial court concluded that appellants had not carried their burden of proof, that respondent had fulfilled the obligation for which he was retained, and that he was not negligent.

You must be