Legal Malpractice

Daubert and Legal Malpractice?

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

One of the more interesting aspects of legal malpractice litigation is the ferocity with which defendant attorneys will employ in their defense...especially when contrasted with the particulars of plaintiff's complaint...usually that the attorneys were way below lackluster when they were prosecuting the underlying case.

Here is an example from the MassTortDefense blog.

"A legal malpractice case is the somewhat surprising setting for an interesting Daubert toxic tort opinion, but we found one. Young, et al. v. Burton, et al, 2008 WL 2810237 (D.D.C. 7/22/08).

Plaintiffs sued a law firm for allegedly failing to file a timely personal injury lawsuit for their alleged mold-induced injuries. The lawsuit would have sought recovery from a landlord for damages suffered by plaintiffs allegedly as a result of exposure to toxic mold while residing in a DC apartment building. In order to succeed on their legal malpractice claim, plaintiffs needed to show their underlying claim was meritorious. Thus, plaintiffs needed admissible expert testimony as to the cause, nature, and extent of their injuries.

Defendants moved to exclude the expert’s testimony, arguing that his opinions were not based on a reliable methodology.

Following a Daubert hearing, the Court concluded that the diagnosis of plaintiffs, as well as the proffered opinions relating to general and specific causation, were not sufficiently grounded in scientifically valid principles and methods to satisfy Daubert."

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on August 21, 2008 (boomark / email).