Davis v. Enget
2010 N.D. LEXIS 32, 2010 ND 34, 779 N.W.2d 126 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must provide expert testimony to establish the attorney's breach of the professional standard of care, unless the alleged misconduct is so obvious and egregious that a layperson could understand the breach without expert assistance.
Facts:
- Anthony Davis hired attorneys Wade Enget and Tom Slorby to represent him in a medical malpractice lawsuit against UniMed Medical Center and two physicians.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in the medical malpractice action.
- Davis subsequently sued his former attorneys, Enget and Slorby, for legal malpractice.
- Davis alleged that his attorneys were negligent by representing him in a field beyond their expertise, inadequately preparing for trial, failing to secure relevant medical evidence, and failing to timely notify him of his lost appeal.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Davis sued his former attorneys, Wade Enget and Tom Slorby, for legal malpractice in a state district court.
- The district court dismissed Slorby as a party due to improper service of process.
- Enget filed a motion for summary judgment, which he supported with an affidavit from an expert attorney opining that his representation met the appropriate standard of care.
- Davis opposed the motion with his own personal affidavit but did not provide any expert testimony.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Enget, dismissing Davis's lawsuit.
- Davis, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's personal affidavit, without supporting expert testimony, create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice case where the attorney's alleged errors are not obvious to a layperson?
Opinions:
Majority - Crothers, Justice
No. A plaintiff's personal affidavit, without supporting expert testimony, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in a legal malpractice case involving complex professional conduct. The court affirmed that legal malpractice claims generally require expert testimony to establish the professional's standard of care and whether the professional’s conduct deviated from that standard. There is a narrow exception for cases where the misconduct is so 'egregious and obvious' that a layperson could comprehend it, such as an attorney failing to appear in court. However, Davis's allegations regarding trial preparation, securing evidence, and legal expertise concern the 'nuances and variations of the practice of law,' which fall outside this exception. Because Davis only provided his own lay opinion and failed to present any expert testimony to counter the defendant's expert, he did not meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact, making summary judgment for the attorney appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary threshold for plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases, solidifying the general rule that expert testimony is indispensable. By strictly limiting the 'obvious error' exception, the court protects attorneys from unsubstantiated claims based merely on a client's dissatisfaction with a case's outcome. The ruling effectively requires most malpractice plaintiffs to secure a favorable expert opinion early in litigation to survive a summary judgment motion, adding a significant procedural and financial hurdle. This precedent makes it more difficult for clients to pursue claims related to an attorney's strategic decisions or trial conduct without expert support.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Enget