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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT