Link for opinion: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP109/109ap426.pdf
In Ackerly and Brown, LLP v Richard Smithies among many others found on the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch website (http://jud.ct.gov/) the issue of legal malpractice was brought forward but the court system ruled on the side of the attorneys.
In this case the attorney Michael Sconyers, partner in Ackerly and Brown, LLP, represented the Smithies’ in a lawsuit involving a failed residential lease. A third party sued them for damages. Conyers informed that the case could be settled for a lesser amount and to bring this to court would be expensive and the outcome would be uncertain. After a four day trial, they jury returned a verdict in favor of the third party and awarded damages of approximately $25,000. The damages ended up being reduced to $8000.
Sconyers filed a complaint seeking collecting of the outstanding balance owed by the Smithies’. Smithies’ filed and answer and counterclaim essentially claiming Sconyers had committed legal malpractice. Prior to the start of evidence, the plaintiff filed a motion to preclude the defendants from presenting any evidence regarding legal malpractice. The reason for filing this motion was the defendants’ failure to disclose an expert witness in accordance with the rules of practice. In the decision handed down by the court the absence of expert testimony proved fatal to the defendants’ claim of legal malpractice. In the Civil Jury Instructions 3.8-5 it is stated that malpractice is professional negligence. “Because jurors are probably unfamiliar with legal procedures, methods, etc…cannot be expected to know the demands of proper legal representation. It is for this reason that expert testimony is required to define the standard of care or the duty owing from the lawyer to his client….” (http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/civil/part3/3.8-5.htm) If it is required that an expert witness is a necessary that can be a HUGE deterrent to clients wanting to bring a legal malpractice against their attorney. The cost might not be worth the effort.
After further research on the State Grievance Committee website on the State Connecticut Judicial Branch website many of the decision this was affirmed that most decision went in favor of the attorney and very rarely were recommended to higher courts for decision for discipline. When there was a recommendation for discipline to find out what that was for the particular attorney was difficult if not impossible to locate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment