North Dakota: Are all the elements met for legal malpractice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9620731827234844004&q=%22legal+malpractice%22%2B%22north+dakota%22&hl=en&as_sdt=100000002&as_ylo=2006

In Davis v. Enget 779 N.W.2d 126 (2010) 2010 ND 34 Davis asserted a claim of legal malpractice against the attorney’s he hired. The real issue, were all the elements of legal malpractice being met? The issue is also, whether the summary judgment was appropriately granted as to there being a breach of duty by the attorney and damages to the client proximately caused by the breach. Had Davis met the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Davis cannot use mere allegations but had to present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means to show existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Enget did have a duty to Davis because he was represented by them in a case. Davis asserts the Enget failed to present expert testimony and that breach is his proof of genuine issue of material facts. Davis also claims that Enget and Slorby were negligent by representing him in a field of law they were ill-prepared, inadequately prepared for court, and did not secure relevant medical evidence and failing to notify him of the status of this case. Davis rejected Enget’s motion for a summary judgment with only his affidavit lacking admissible evidence or other competent evidence.

His lay opinion of their actions is not enough to support his claims alone because the actions of Enget and Slorby were not egregious or obvious that a layperson could perceive them. Davis did not present an affidavit or expert testimony to show that the firm’s duty was, completely lacking and the courts affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing Davis’s legal malpractice action.