LEGAL MALPRACTICE EXPERT WITNESS

Why use an expert? For a plaintiff to prevail in most legal malpractice cases, an expert must testify that the defendant-attorney was negligent. For the defendant to prevail in most legal malpractice cases, an expert must testify that the defendant-attorney was not negligent. If the defense does not have an independent expert witness testify, the jury may infer that there is no support for the defense position

What is the prime qualification of an expert that the jury (and other side) will respect? An expert witness attorney is a teacher. He/she must lay the foundation for the jurors to be able to understand the reasons why actions must be taken or avoided. And that foundation must be expressed with clarity. So what you want is an expert - who can express -- with clarity -- the reasons behind his/her conclusion.

To express that rational foundation with clarity needs two things:

the trial attorney must ask the proper questions, so that the expert can testify and tell the jury what it needs to know.

the expert witness must understand the courtroom dynamic,
and be an expert in communicating in the courtroom.

You usually need an expert witness who can express not only whether there was or was not negligence, but also who can express whether the underlying matter would have resulted in a favorable result, and whether the underlying matter had settlement value. This need arises from the legal fact that: in malpractice claims usually plaintiff must prove, "a case within a case." The "within a case" case is whether the defendant-attorney was negligent. The second case is whether the underlying matter (if properly handled) would have resulted in a favorable result for the legal malpractice plaintiff.

Choose an expert attorney who has the courtroom experience to correctly state the foundation of his/her opinion under Daubert style tests or other evidence rule foundation tests. The gatekeeper functions that judges now exercise mandate an expert who understands the significance of Daubert style motions to exclude expert testimony and the information that should be presented to keep the the opinion in evidence..