ILNews

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.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT