Smith v. Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Geurard
322 S.C. 433, 472 S.E.2d 612 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action, a state's Rules of Professional Conduct are admissible as evidence of the standard of care. Furthermore, the standard of care for attorneys is statewide, meaning an expert witness is not disqualified simply for not being licensed in the state or for not being a specialist in the specific area of law at issue.
Facts:
- Appellants Smith and Murray entered into a contract with a developer, Bill Bashor, to purchase and develop lots on Wild Dunes.
- The law firm Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard (Haynsworth) represented Smith, Murray, and Bashor in the real estate transaction.
- Two partners at the Haynsworth firm were also investors in the same development scheme.
- Bashor, the developer, paid the attorney's fees owed by Smith and Murray to the Haynsworth firm.
- Smith and Murray signed limited powers of attorney that authorized the Haynsworth firm to execute closing documents on their behalf.
- The real estate development scheme ultimately failed.
- The lots were foreclosed upon by the bank.
Procedural Posture:
- Smith and Murray sued the law firm Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard in a South Carolina trial court for legal malpractice.
- At trial, the court granted Haynsworth's motion to exclude the testimony of Smith and Murray's expert witness, Professor Gregory Adams.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant law firm, Haynsworth.
- Smith and Murray, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is expert testimony in a legal malpractice action inadmissible if it relies on the state's Rules of Professional Conduct to establish the standard of care, and if the expert is not licensed to practice in the state or is not a specialist in the relevant area of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Waller, Justice
No. The trial court erred in excluding the expert's testimony. The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action, as they can serve as evidence of the common law duty of care. The court adopts the majority view that such rules are admissible so long as the rule is intended to protect a person in the plaintiff's position or is addressed to the particular harm. The court also formally abandons the 'locality rule' for legal malpractice and adopts a statewide standard of care. Consequently, an expert is not disqualified merely because they are not licensed to practice in South Carolina or are not a specialist in the substantive area of law; such factors go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision aligns South Carolina with the majority of jurisdictions on key evidentiary issues in legal malpractice cases. By allowing the Rules of Professional Conduct to be used as evidence of the standard of care, the court makes it easier for plaintiffs to establish a breach of duty. More significantly, the adoption of a statewide standard of care and the rejection of a locality or specialization requirement for experts broadens the pool of available witnesses. This prevents a potential 'conspiracy of silence' among local attorneys and ensures that the standard of care reflects broader professional norms rather than insulated local practices.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Geurard