Expert's voice carries weight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Thanks to a recent Indiana Court of Appeals ruling, all it may take to prove legal malpractice is one expert witness saying how he or she would have handled the issue differently.

In September, a three-judge panel held that an attorney’s expert witness testimony about his or her own practices can be used in a legal malpractice case to establish a “standard of care,” even if that method isn’t an accepted or uniform practice within the legal community. Typically in these types of cases, a broader pattern of practice and conduct in the legal community is analyzed.

“In my opinion, this is the most dangerous thing I’ve seen for lawyers in legal malpractice litigation,” said Indianapolis attorney Patrick Olmstead with Hoover Hull, who authored a brief for the Indiana State Bar Association’s General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Section. “Any lawyer admitted to practice law in Indiana, with a passing knowledge of the matter, could say this is my practice and this is what other attorneys should do. If that happens, it would be more difficult to obtain summary judgment.”

In Corrine R. Finnerty, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Dora Grace Lee, deceased v. Joseph A. Colussi and the Colussi Law Office, No. 39A01-1011-ES-622, Madison attorney Joseph Colussi served as counsel to a personal representative on an estate for a woman who died in 2007. The estate sued Colussi, arguing that he committed legal malpractice by not personally monitoring the estate’s account and how money was used by family members; Colussi countersued to recover unpaid attorney fees. The estate enlisted Columbus attorney Thomas C. Bigley Jr. as an expert witness, who said Colussi breached the applicable standard of care by failing to control and monitor the checking account. In his deposition, Bigley

testified that the applicable standard of care requires an estate attorney to retain the estate’s checkbook, thereby requiring the personal representative to come to the attorney’s office to obtain checks. He also said he would have more carefully monitored the opening of the estate and would have had monthly bank statements from the estate sent to his office.

The trial court granted summary judgment in Colussi’s favor, holding that while Bigley was a qualified expert witness, he didn’t establish that it was a uniform or accepted standard for a representative’s attorney to monitor a bank account.

The appellate court called that conclusion “puzzling,” writing that personal experience is often the source of expertise. It held that the expertise of one attorney could be used to determine a standard of care that proves or disproves whether a breach occurred. According to the appellate panel, the trial court confused the issues of duty and breach, and as an expert witness Bigley wasn’t “lacking in foundation” to offer his opinion about the standard of care.

As a result of Bigley’s expert testimony being admitted, the appellate panel found a material question of fact existed about legal malpractice and the judges remanded the case for trial. A transfer petition has been filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, which had not taken action on the case as of IL deadline.

The holding drew response from sections of the Indiana State Bar Association as well as the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

“Requiring that experts in professional liability cases testify regarding applicable standard of care, rather than permitting testimony that a particular professional would have done things differently or that their individual practice was or is different than the defendant’s practice, serves a number of important interests including ensuring fundamental fairness in those cases,” Indianapolis attorney Don Kite wrote in the DTCI brief.

Olmstead sees this case as one that could impact how legal malpractice suits are litigated. Since most are resolved by summary judgment once they get to court, Olmstead believes that the Court of Appeals holding will allow for a more diverse mix of what a “standard” is and that more of these disputes will have to go to trial.

“Making a choice based on two reasonable options and getting a bad result isn’t malpractice,” he said. “That’s best practices, not a standard of care, and we need to be focusing on what the community of attorneys does under these circumstances.”

cox-dina-mug.jpg Cox

Finding attorneys to testify in those types of cases can be difficult enough, Olmstead and others say, without having to worry about whether that lawyer’s practices alone will be dubbed the applicable standard of care.

Some lawyers say they look outside the local legal market to find attorneys who might be expert witnesses, while others say they stay within the local market in order to judge what that legal community typically does on that aspect of legal work.

In Hammond, David Beach with Eichhorn & Eichhorn said that finding attorneys can be a challenge simply because of the type of case. He’s looked to attorneys outside the state and has asked law professors from Northern Indiana and Illinois to testify. If it’s an Indiana-specific issue, Beach and his partners rely on Hoosier attorneys who have indicated they are willing to testify in legal malpractice cases.

“You are, at times, asking colleagues to take a stand in court, and you might have contemporaries squaring off against one another in a field they both practice in,” Beach said.

At Lewis Wagner in Indianapolis, professional liability defense attorney Dina Cox said she’s had difficulty getting local attorneys to testify against another in that same market.

“That burns too many bridges, and it’s uncomfortable and awkward,” she said. “Some might say that’s a flaw in the legal community, but it comes down to wanting a civil and courteous professional relationship with your colleagues. You just don’t want that cloud over your head.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.